Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for a delay of 19 days in filing. The assessee contended that as a senior citizen, they were not fully aware of the online filing system and came to know about the assessment order only upon receiving an intimation under section 245 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was completed ex-parte at Rs. 1,14,45,880/-.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation for the delay, citing unawareness of the online system as a senior citizen. The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for a marginal delay without condoning it, and whether the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient, especially considering their senior citizen status.
Sections Cited
143(2), 144, 184(5), 245, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE
O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM:
This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting condonation of delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) and not considering the merits of the case. The appellant had been denied of principle of natural justice.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the condonation of delay erred in holding that the appellant is aware of notices since he has filed an adjournment request via the portal. The appellant came to know about the passing of the assessment order upon receipt of Intimation u/s 245 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay as the appellant had submitted the plausible explanation for the delay. Further, the appellant neither had any malafide intention nor had gained any undue benefit or there is no loss to the revenue for delay in filing the appeal.
On the facts and circumstances of the case law the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO had grossly erred in addition of Rs 1,06,95,564/- as an unverified creditors without considering the submissions of the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings without considering the fact that the increase in creditors is on account acquisition of fixed assets which are paid in the subsequent year.
On the facts and circumstances of the case law the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO erred in addition of Rs 1,50,000/- towards remuneration to partners by applying the provisions of Section 184(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering submission of the appellate during the course of assessment proceedings.
The order appeal against is bad in Law and against the principle of natural justices and tax jurisprudence.
The order appeal against is based on surmises and conjectures.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Each ground of appeal is distinct and separate. ”
2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income at Rs. 6,00,320/- was filed on 26.09.2016. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.07.2017. During the course of assessment proceeding because of non-compliance from the side of the assessee, the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs. 1,14,45,880/- after disallowing the outstanding sundry creditors standing more than a year to the amount of Rs. 1,06,95,564/- and disallowance of remuneration paid to the partners to the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal filed by the assessee on merit and appeal was dismissed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 19 days.
During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) is unjustified in not deciding the appeal filed by the assessee on merit without the condonation of marginal delay in filing the appeal by 19 days. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the assessee being a senior citizen was not fully aware about the online mode of communication of notices by e-mail and he came to know about completion of assessment after receiving the notice u/s 245 of the Act.
Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. After perusal of the submission of the assessee, we find that the assessee has properly explained before the ld. CIT(A) that being a senior citizen assessee was not fully aware about the new system of filing of appeal through online. We find that action of ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the marginal delay of 19 days is not justified, therefore, we condone the marginal delay of filing 19 days filing before the First Appellate Authority and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee on merit as contemplate u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say that adequate opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.11.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER