THIRUVENGADATHAN PAKSHI RAJAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF
ITA 1260/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2024AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryN/A

Facts

The assessee, a non-resident, did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2011-12. The AO initiated reassessment under Section 148 based on information of investments in mutual funds and life insurance, making additions for unexplained investments and interest income. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay, which the CIT(A) dismissed without considering the merits of the case.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds (delay) instead of deciding it on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate it on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering its merits, and if there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

Sections Cited

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Chapter VI A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, A/R

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, TRUE COPY

Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai `

THIRUVENGADATHAN PAKSHI RAJAN,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 35(3)(4), MUMBAI | BharatTax