Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee firm purchased a property for Rs. 23,00,000, but the stamp duty value was Rs. 2,83,23,680. The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,60,23,680 and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,80,12,550. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to significant delays in filing without condonation.
Held
The Tribunal noted the significant delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the lack of substantiated reasons or documentary evidence for these delays. However, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits due to delay in filing, and whether the Tribunal should grant an opportunity for denovo consideration.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144, 270A, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM
(Assessment Year: 2018-19)
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Neminath Developers ITO-42(1(3) 2/B, Gangar House, S.V. Road, Kautilya Bhavan Income Tax Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. Office, G Block BKC, PAN : AAAFN5462B Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Near Videsh Bhawan, Mumbai-400051. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : None Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2024 : O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeals by the assessee are against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short 'the CIT(A)'] both dated 27.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 passed against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The assessee is a firm and filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 27.08.2018 declaring an income of Nil. The return was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of investments in immovable property. During the year under consideration the assessee has purchased property for Rs. 23,00,000/- whereas the AO noticed that the stamp duty value of the said property was Rs. 2,83,23,680/-. The AO issued several notices to the assessee calling for details pertaining to the impugned transactions. However, the assessee did not respond to the notices and did not file any details. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s 143(3) where he made an addition of Rs. 2,60,23,680/- being the difference between the purchase value and the stamp duty value. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding under section 270A of the Act wherein he levied a penalty of Rs. 1,80,12,550/-. The assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) against both the orders of the AO. There was a delay of 336 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the AO passed under section 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. There was a delay of 311 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the AO under section 270A of the Act. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay for the reason that the assessee has not substantiated the reason for the undue delay in filing the appeal before him. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals without going into the merits of the issue.
The ld. AR submitted that the partners of the assessee firm were having some personal issues due to which they could not represent the case before the lower authorities. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to represent the case before the lower authorities.
& 2194/Mum/2024 Neminath Developers 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 336 days and 311 days against the order under section 143(3) and under section 270A respectively. We notice that the assessee has submitted before the CIT(A) that there was an FIR lodged against the partner and that the parents of one of the partners was not well as reasons for delay in filing the appeal. However, we notice that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidences or affidavit to support the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We also notice that the CIT(A) did not condone the delay since the assessee did not substantiate the reason for the undue delay in filing the appeal and that the CIT(A) did not consider the issue of merits. Considering these facts in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we remit the appeal to the CIT(A) for a denovo consideration including condonation of delay in filing the appeal in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file proper supporting documents to substantiate the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and also to file necessary documents for adjudication of the impugned issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21-08-2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (MS. PADMAVATHY S) Judicial Member Accountant Member *SK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai