Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.