SHRI ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 575/ASR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the dates mentioned by the CIT(A) in his order did not match the records. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the factual aspects, provide the assessee an opportunity to explain any delay, and then admit and dispose of the appeal on its merits. The assessee was also directed to provide documentary evidence for cash deposits during demonetization.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which originated from an ex-parte assessment order by the AO. The CIT(A) had refused to admit the assessee's appeal on merits, declining to condone the delay in filing. The Tribunal noted a 2-day delay in the assessee's appeal to the ITAT, which it condoned, and observed significant discrepancies between the dates cited by the CIT(A) regarding the demand notice and appeal filing, and the actual records.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay and not admitting the appeal on merits, given discrepancies in recorded dates; and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Hearing: 16.07.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 22.08.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward, Udhampur passed u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 18.12.2019. belatedly filed by 2 (two) days. We find that this memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 along with the enclosures has been dispatched from Anantnag, Kashmir by post and the said parcel has reached the office of the Tribunal on 23rd October, 2024 which is belated by 2 (two days) days. We condone the delay and accept the appeal to be decided on merits.

3.

On the date of hearing, there is no appearance by the assessee or his ld. AR.

An application for adjournment has been filed but considering the records and the issues involved, we find that the matter can be disposed of after hearing the ld. DR and after consulting the records.

4.

The assessee has taken 9 (nine) grounds in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 and one of the issues raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has refused to admit the appeal for hearing on merits and has not adjudicated on the grounds of appeal as per Form No. 35 and has rejected the appeal refusing to condone the delay in filing the same. From the appellate order, it is seen that the ld. first appellate authority has given incorrect findings in para no. 5 of the appellate order where he has observed as follows:

“5. (1) I have gone through the Assessment Order and grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. It is observed that the date of service of notice of demand is 27.06.2024 and the

5.

We find from records that the assessment order has been passed on 18.12.2019 (ex-parte) and the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been filed on 16.02.2021 and as per Form No. 35, it is submitted by the assessee that the notice of demand has been served on the assessee on 12.02.2021 (even though the order of assessment has been issued on 18.12.2029). As such, the appeal could not be filed without the notice of demand u/s 156 which admittedly has been received on 12.02.2021, and the appeal filed within 4 (four days) on 16.12.2021, from the date of receipt of demand notice.

6.

However, we observe that the dates as stated by the ld. first appellate authority in para no. 5(1) of the order does not match with the dates in the assessment order and in Form No. 35. We also find that the appeal has not been admitted for decision on merits because the delay has not been condoned by the ld. first appellate authority.

7.

The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the matter is remanded back.

8.

Considering the records, we find that the justice will be served if the matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for looking in to factual aspect of the matter, and to allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard to contained in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 on merits of the case.

9.

The assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences and submissions to explain the source of cash deposits in bank during the demonetization period and to fully cooperate in appeal proceedings.

10.

The assessee should be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard.

11.

We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

12.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 18.08.2025

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →