ELDER PROJETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 477/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 November 2017AY 2008-094 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 ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) beyond the statutory period. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as unadmitted without specifying the period of delay or affording an effective opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and affording an effective opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

For Appellant: Shri Ujjwal Ganwar, Shri N. Hemalatha
For Respondent: Shri N. Hemalatha

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the concerned assessment years.

2.

The common grounds raised

(except for the change in figure) read as under:

1.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in Law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the appellate order without affording effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

2 & 479/M/2017 (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2011-12) Elder Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in Law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the impugned appeal.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.14,53,625/- by invoking provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act 1961.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing carry forward of brought forward depreciation amounting to Rs.1,81,56,680/- as per the grounds stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

3.

In this case, consequent upon the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the appellate order, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the appeal filed was beyond the statutory period. However, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nowhere mentioned the period of delay.

Noting that the assessee has also sought several adjournments, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) proceeded to hold that the delay will not be condoned and the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

4.

Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

5.

I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. I find that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal by holding that he was not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. However, the ld. Commissioner of 3 & 479/M/2017 (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2011-12) Elder Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT Income Tax (Appeals) has nowhere in his order mentioned the delay which he is not condoning. I find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahara Farms 300 ITR 403 has held that even an administrative order has to be consistent with rules of natural justice. Proper application of mind is an integral and inalienable part of the same. Dearth of the application of mind by the first appellate authority is palpably manifest in this case. On enquiry, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the delay in filing before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be of around one month. Hence in the interest of justice and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is condoned and the issue raised is remitted to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →