Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 144 days. The reason provided for the delay was miscommunication/non-communication by the erstwhile legal consultant. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs.1,73,00,000/- under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE and Rs.3,65,114/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal found the reason for the delay to be bonafide and unintentional. For the sake of justice, the delay was condoned subject to the deposit of Rs.5,500/- in the Revenue Department. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the case remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 69C, 115BBE, 56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is observed that in the instant case the assessment order dated 10.03.2023 has been passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer (AO) has made the additions of Rs.1,73,00,000/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as well as of Rs.3,65,114/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being difference between the purchase consideration and stamp duty value.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions as well as reopening of the case before the Ld. Commissioner by filing the first appeal, however, with a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner with regard to the delay has submitted that the erstwhile legal consultant of the Assessee was dealing with the Assessee’s case and due to miscommunication/non- communication the appeal could not be filed within the due date which resulted into delay. The delay occurred was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reasons. The Assessee submitted that though the Assessee has demonstrated before the Ld. Commissioner the reason for delay, however, the Ld. Commissioner has not accepted the same and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and without condoning the delay, therefore, this Hon’ble Court is prayed to take a lenient view and condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit as the Assessee has plausible case on merits.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The reason stated for the delay occurred that due to miscommunication/non- communication the appeal could not be filed within the due date, does not appears to be convincing however, appears to be bonafide and unintentional, and therefore for the just decision and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, however subject to deposit of Rs.5,500/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” and without claiming any disallowance/exemption of this amount, but within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thus, for the just decision and substantial justice, the impugned order is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee in the aforesaid terms. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2024.