Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 2057 days. The CIT(A) relied on the Limitation Act and stated the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity for hearing to justify the delay.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding the delay in filing the appeal. This was considered a violation of the principle of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to explain the delay. Whether the denial of deduction u/s 80P by CPC was correct.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 80P, 234A, 234B, 234C, 246A(1)(a), 5 of the Limitation Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act [the „Act‟ in short] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053357748(1) Dated 31/05/2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
2 M/s. Clover Regency CHS Ltd 2. Following grounds of appeal have been raised by the appellant: 1. “On the given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, CIT (Appeals) erred in not accepting the appeal filed and not considering the condonation of delay without considering the reasons and providing opportunity of hearing. Thereby the delay be condoned while filing the appeal before CIT(Appeals) and appeal be considered & allowed on merits and deduction u/s.80P be allowed.
2. On the given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Central Processing Centre (CPC) while processing the return u/s.143(1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 in denying deduction of u/s 80P of Rs.7,92,745/- as claimed by the assessee while filing the Return of Income for A.Y.2014-15. It is therefore submitted that such incorrect processing by CPC resulting in increase of tax liability should be reduced and brought to the amount as shown in the return of income of the assessee after granting full TDS credit for the year under consideration.
3. On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition without providing proper opportunity of hearing which is against the principle of natural justice. Such addition is bad in law and erroneous in facts and liable to be deleted as the same is confirmed without providing proper opportunity of hearing.
4. On the given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, Central Processing Centre (CPC) while processing the return u/s.143(1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 has levying the interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C of The Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of increase in the tax liability. It is therefore submitted that such incorrect processing by CPC resulting in levying of interest of The Income Tax Act, 1961 3 M/s. Clover Regency CHS Ltd should be reduced to NIL for the year under consideration. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the above grounds of appeal
.”
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant had filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 21/08/2014 declaring the total income at Rs.1,73,700/-. The said return was processed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 22/01/2015 assessing the income at Rs.9,66,440/- in which claim of deduction u/s. 80P amounting to Rs.7,92,745/- was denied to the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there was a delay of 2057 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as against the prescribe limit of 30 days as provided u/s. 246A(1)(a). The Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has relied on the several decision of the Hon'ble courts that the assessee has failed to demonstrate before him the sufficient cause as envisaged in section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed before us. During the appellate proceedings before us, the assessee filed an affidavit to the effect that “the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal 4 ITA No.2588/M/2023 M/s. Clover Regency CHS Ltd without giving any opportunity of hearing to M/s. Clover Regency Co- Operative Society Limited to justify the delay in filing the appeal”.
6. We have considered the facts of the case and the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A). It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided the appellant the opportunity of being heard to explain the reason for the delay of 2057 days in filing the appeal. This is against the principle of natural justice and therefore, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to provide the assessee the opportunity of being heard and then decide the issue accordingly.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2024.