HARDIK BHARTI,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 4(3) , JALANDHAR

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 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. 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.