HARDIK BHARTI,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 4(3) , JALANDHAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 31.07.2024 passed u/s 250 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward 4(3), Jalandhar dated 19.05.2023 passed u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2 I.T.A. No. 538/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The main objection raised by the assessee in his grounds of appeal in Form-36,
relates to the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), referring to admit the appeal on account
of delay of 50 (fifty) days in filing the appeal, before the first appellate authority.
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee are an individual has
returned income from capital gains amounting to Rs.4,23,900/- which has been
processed by CPC, Bengaluru at Rs. 8,47,800/- u/s 143(1), which is exactly double
the amount of the income returned. A rectification application u/s 154 was filed
before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for rectification of the error apparent from
record of the intimation u/s 143(1), which was rejected by the jurisdictional
Assessing Officer, vide order dated 19.05.2023, on the ground that the assessee has
declared the amount of capital gains at Rs.4,23,900/- in the column No. A2c of the
Schedule CG which has resulted in this assessment by CPC, Bengaluru generated out
of the system and the according to the AO, the same cannot be reduced by invoking
the provisions of section 154 and as such, the application has been disposed of
accordingly without any benefit to the assessee.
The matter carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, has been dismissed
in limine, without admitting the appeal for hearing and adjudication on merits,
because the appeal was belatedly filed by 50 days and the deficiency letter issued by
the ld. CIT(A) has not been responded to by the assessee, even though in the
3 I.T.A. No. 538/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35, the reason for delay was treated to be
medical illness.
Before the Tribunal, there was no appearance by the assessee or his ld. AR,
but, on the basis of the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal contained in
Form No. 36, we find that the assessee has submitted an affidavit and other
documentary evidences regarding the rectification in respect of the capital gains
declared in the return and its subsequent assessment by CPC, Bengaluru (which is
computer generated) without any hearing at exactly double the returned income
figure.
As such, we proceed to dispose of this appeal considering the materials
contained on records, after hearing the ld. DR who is present in the court.
In the instant case, we find that the appeal filed before the ld. first appellate
authority was belated by 50 days (fifty) and the assessee has stated the reasons of
delay to be on medical grounds which was not found to be satisfactory by the ld. first
appellate authority. We are of the opinion, that in the instant case, the delay is
marginal and for rendering of substantial justice, the delay needs to be condoned on
medical grounds and the appeal should be admitted by the ld. first appellate authority
to be considered and adjudicated on the grounds contained in the memorandum of
appeal in Form No. 35 on merits.
4 I.T.A. No. 538/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 8. As such, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the
matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for admitting
the appeal and for disposal of the same by adjudicating on the grounds contained in
Form No. 35, on merits, and the assessee is also directed to file all necessary
supporting evidences and submissions before the first appellate authority and to fully
cooperate in appeal proceeding for proper disposal of the case.
The assessee should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 30.05.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
