MAHESH BABULAL VAISHYA ,PALGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, , PALGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2402/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 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 held that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to justify the delay. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain the delay and decide the appeal afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 238 days in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) found no sufficient reason for the delay and thus did not admit the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ K(SMC

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A/R
Hearing: 30/07/2024Pronounced: 30/07/2024

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 06/03/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [‘ld. CIT(A)’], pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine.

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that while deciding the appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 238 days in filing the appeal. Since the appeal was filed after the expiry of limitation of time and since the ld. CIT(A) could not find any reason for the said delay in Form 35, the appeal was not admitted and dismissed. 2

4.

We have given a careful consideration to the order of the ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered view that, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the assessee to justify and bring on record sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow the assessee to justify the delay in filing of the appeal and thereafter, if satisfied, decide the appeal afresh on merits.

5.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 30th July, 2024 at Mumbai. (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 30/07/2024 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु" अपील

4.

( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. गाड" फाई/ Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 35

All 169 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →