P.PARAMESWARAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1784/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 March 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the assessee had offered an explanation for the delay orally or in writing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to reconsider the issue of condonation of delay after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was delayed by 267 days, and no formal petition for condonation of delay was filed. The CIT(Appeals) refused to entertain the appeal, stating the assessee's explanation for the delay was not accepted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without a proper verification of the explanation offered by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 14.03.2018Pronounced: 23.03.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Coimbatore, dated 30.03.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

2.

No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice by RPAD. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as proof of service of notice on the assessee.

Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit.

3.

Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a delay of 267 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). No petition for condonation of delay was filed. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay of 267 days and refused to entertain the appeal. On a query from the Bench, when the CIT(Appeals) says that the explanation of the assessee was not accepted, how the explanation was offered before the CIT(Appeals)? The Ld. D.R. submitted that the appeal file of the CIT(Appeals) is not available before him, therefore, he is not able to explain how the CIT(Appeals) says that the explanation of the assessee was not accepted to him.

4.

We heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, there was a delay of 267 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, it is for the assessee to explain the reasons which prevented him from filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) within the time prescribed. From the order of the CIT(Appeals) it appears that no application for condonation of delay was filed before the CIT(Appeals). However, it appears that explanation was offered before the CIT(Appeals) with regard to delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, it needs to be verified whether the explanation was offered orally or by way of written submission. The Ld. D.R. could not clarify how the explanation was offered by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals).

In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals).

Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue of condonation of delay is remitted back to the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall reconsider the issue on the basis of the explanation that may be offered by the assessee and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 23rd March, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →