Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 12-day delay in filing, citing the assessee was unwell. The CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the case. The assessee filed an appeal against this order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. The interest of justice would be served by setting aside the order and remitting the matter back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the appeal was rightly dismissed on grounds of limitation without considering the merits, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
144, 144B, 250, 139(1), 143(2), 56(2)(viib), 69, 115BBE, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2020-21,date of order 10.07.2024. The impugned order is emanated from the order of the Learned Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, order passed under section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 02/09/2022.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return under section 139(1) of the Act and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessment was completed by addition sunder section 56(2)(viib) of the Act amount to Rs.9,58,940/- and under section 69 amount to Rs.43lakh and the tax was levied by pursuing section 115BBE of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 12 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation for delay in filing the appeal. The assessee in appeal Form 35, filled up the relevant column-15 and it is mentioned that “The appeal is delayed due to the fact that the appellant was not well”. The ld.CIT(A), due to absence of the sufficient cause by contravening provisions of section 249(3), the appeal was dismissed without considering the merit. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us.
We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and filed a written submission which is kept in the record (in short APB). It is found that the assessment order was passed on 02/09/2022 and the appeal petition was instituted on 13/10/2022. It is placed that the assessee was not well and undergoing the medical emergency. For that reason, the appeal was delayed by 12 days. The ld.CIT(A) has passed the order without considering the ground of appeal but rejected the appeal only on the point of limitation.
The ld.DR argued and had not made any strong objection against the argument of the ld. AR.
In our considered view the reasonable opportunity was denied for the assessee for submission of his evidence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub served if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for consideration thereof afresh. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay for 12 days and to pass a speaking order by considering the merit of the case. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the appellate procedure before the ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in set aside proceedings.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st day of October 2024. Sd/- sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 21/10/2024 Pavanan