Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of approximately thirty days. The assessee explained that this delay was caused by seeking professional advice regarding legal remedies for multiple orders related to the same assessment year. The assessee filed an appeal against an intimation processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which was later followed by scrutiny proceedings and an assessment order under section 143(3).
Held
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned the delay and was of the view that the CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning it. Since the CIT(A) had not disposed of the appeal on merits, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justified and if the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
Assessment Year : 2022-23 Lords Freight (India) Private Deputy Commissioner of Income Limited, Tax, Arena Space, vs. Circle-2(2)(1), 10th& 11th Floor, 545, 5th Floor, Plot No. 20, JVLR, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Majas Bus Depot, M.K. Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. Mumbai. PAN : AACCL0108M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain For Revenue : Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21-11-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 02-12-2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 07-08-2024 passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara and it relates to the Assessment Year (AY.)2022-23. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine, without condoning the delay of around thirty days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
The Ld.AR submitted thatthe return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) on 26-07-2023 making various adjustments to the returned income. Hence, the assessee filed appeal against the above said intimation before Ld CIT(A) and the same is pending before him.
Subsequently, the AO started scrutiny proceedings and passed the assessment order on 21-03-2024 u/s.143(3) of the Act. On the very same day, a revised intimation was issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act by CPC, wherein adjustments were made again. In view of the several orders passed for the very same assessment year, the assessee was seeking professional advice on available legal remedies and the same has led to a delay of around thirty days in filing the appeal before Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A).
We heard the Ld.DR on this issue and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
Since the Ld.CIT(A) has not disposed the appeal on merits, we deem it proper to restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.