M/S KVR INFRA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE-30(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2195/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 August 2024AY 2013-144 pages

AI SummaryN/A

Facts

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 which was picked for scrutiny, leading to an assessment order on 18.03.2016 determining total income at Rs. 6.41 Crores. The assessee challenged this assessment before the CIT(A), but while filing Form No. 35, it incorrectly stated there was no delay, although the appeal was filed 80 days late. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes without admitting it, as no application for condonation of delay was made.

Held

The Tribunal acknowledged the 80-day delay and the incorrect information in Form No. 35, validating the CIT(A)'s initial dismissal. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A), directing the assessee to submit a proper application for condonation of delay by resubmitting Form No. 35. The CIT(A) is to then consider the condonation application and, if satisfied about sufficient cause, decide the appeal on its merits.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for statistical purposes due to a procedural defect (non-disclosure of delay and lack of condonation application) and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to seek condonation of delay.

Sections Cited

143(3), 143(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM

This appeal is filed by the M/s KVR INFRA (the assessee) against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y. 2013-14 dated 15.03.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 08.03.2016 by the Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-30(2), Mumbai (the learned AO) was dismissed for statistical purposes.

The reason being that the appeal was filed late by 80 days whereas the Form No. 35, the assessee did not mention the delay in filing of the appeal and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) held that such appeal could not be admitted and same was dismissed for statistical purposes.

The assessee is aggrieved with that appeal raising several grounds.

The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of hiring of cranes it filed return of income on 11.04.2014 at Rs.NIL. The return was picked up for scrutiny by issuing notice under Section 143(4) on 28.08.2015. It resulted into an assessment order determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,41,42,450/- by assessment order dated 18.03.2016. The assessee challenged the same before the learned CIT(A) , but while filing Form No.35 the assessee submitted that this order was received on 23.03.2016, however, in Column No. 14, it was required to be mentioned whether there is delay in filing of the appeal or not, the assessee mentioned as “NO”. Therefore, in Paragraph No. 15 no application for condonation of delay was made. In fact, the appeal was filed on 13.06.2016. The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee should have filed this appeal on or before 20.04.2016 whereas the appeal was filed on 13.06.2016. In absence of any application for condonation of delay of 80 days, he dismissed the appeal without admitting the same.