SRI.G.MANOHAR,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CHITRADURGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) as there was a valid reason. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated the issue on merits in light of the evidence filed by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 50 days, which was not condoned. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on merits without a proper hearing, despite the assessee providing explanations and evidence for the delay and the additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) should be condoned and whether the CIT(Appeals) should adjudicate the appeal on merits after considering the evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV
Date of hearing : 02.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2017 O R D E R
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-
“1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner on Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay even though the appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not accepting the appeal on the ground that the additions were agreed by the authorised representative of the appellant.
4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the confirmation of the creditors which proves the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,77,274/- even though the appellant has produced the confirmation and necessary documents. ADDITIONAL GROUND 5. That the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in misunderstanding the fact that the authorized representative has accepted for completion of assessment and not additions made in assessment. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify anyone or all the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that assessee has filed the appeal late by 50 days before the CIT(Appeals). The delay in filing of appeal was explained through application for condonation of delay with the request to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, but the CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of assessee. While doing so, he has given finding on merits also, without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that additions were made u/s. 68 of the Act without looking to the confirmations filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the light of these facts, the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(Appeals) may be condoned and the CIT(Appeals) may be directed to adjudicate the issues on merit in the light of the confirmation filed by the assessee, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of CIT(Appeals).
Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities, I find that the CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay of 50 days wherein the assessee has furnished explanation for the delay in filing of appeal. I have also noticed that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the appeal on merits, without looking to the evidence filed by the assessee with respect to credits recorded in the books of account. I have also carefully examined the explanation for delay in filing of appeal before CIT(Appeals) and I find that there is valid reason for delay in filing of appeal, therefore the delay should be condoned. Accordingly I condone the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(Appeals).
Though the CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated the issue on merits, but he has not adjudicated the issue in the light of evidence filed by the assessee. Accordingly, I set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) with a direction to him to readjudicate the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the light of evidence filed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of August, 2017.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
