CHANDRAKANT KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3874/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 September 2024AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before it, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and in the interest of justice. On the merits, the Tribunal found that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was not based on merits, lacked proper application of mind, and did not contain any critical analysis or objective consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of analysis indicates a non-application of mind and undermines the spirit of the order. It noted that the CIT(A) was expected to state points for determination, decisions, and reasons as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and the CIT(A) was directed to ensure observance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made regarding the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chandrakant Kantilal Shah, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). This order was passed ex-parte and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessment year in question is 2011-12. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of approximately 201 days, with reasons cited including the assessee being an NRI, CA's preoccupations, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and an erroneous e-mail on the portal. The ITAT heard the Learned DR, who supported the impugned order, but no one responded for the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (question of fact and law). 2. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is sustainable in law, given its ex-parte nature and alleged lack of application of mind (question of law). Assessee's contentions: The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing reasons such as being an NRI, the CA's pre-occupations, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and an erroneous e-mail on the portal. The assessee implicitly argued that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was not based on merits and lacked proper application of mind, necessitating a fresh adjudication. Revenue's contentions: The Learned DR supported the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the merits of the case or the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH

Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 16/09/2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.11.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Mumbai – 34/10032/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

2.

None responded for the assessee. Perused records and heard Learned DR who supported the impugned order.

3.

We notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 24/04/2019 against the assessment order passed on 21.12.2018 by a delay of about 201 days. The reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that the assessee is an NRI since 2009. Assessee’s CA could not follow the matter due to pre occupations. The turmoil caused by pandemic Covid-19 during the period is also shown one of the reasons for the delay. It is further pleaded that the erroneous e-mail on the portal also caused delay.

4.

Considering the aforesaid reasons, given in the condonation application and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay in filing this appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned.

1.

Now coming on to the merits of the case, we notice that the 5. impugned order is not based on merits with reason. There is no due or proper application of mind or any critical analysis or objective consideration in the matter despite the same being first appellate authority. It is well settled in law that the reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. Learned CIT(A) was expected Chandrakant Kantilal Shah to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass speaking order. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 14.11.2023 is set aside.

Order pronounced in open court today on 25.09.2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →