MR. APPASAHEB SHANKARRAO HEGDE.,PUNE vs. WARD 23(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 98/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2012-134 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the entire dispute revolved around the date of receipt of the Intimation/Notice of Demand by the assessee. If the assessee indeed received the notice on March 4, 2023, then the appeals should have been decided on their merits by the Additional CIT(A). Conversely, if the revenue could demonstrate that the intimation was sent in 2014, the assessee would need to provide strong evidence to prove the absence of malafide intention for the inordinate delay. In the interest of justice and fair play, the ITAT restored the appeals to the file of the Additional CIT(A). The Additional CIT(A) was directed to verify the date of intimation. If the revenue could not prove the 2014 date, the appeals were to be decided on merits. If the 2014 date was proven, the assessee had to establish bonafide for the delay to the satisfaction of the Additional CIT(A), who was then to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Appasaheb Shankarrao Hegde, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 96, 97 & 98/MUM/2024) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, against separate orders of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Delhi. These appeals pertained to Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15, 2013-14, and 2012-13. The core of the dispute was the Additional CIT(A)'s dismissal of the assessee's appeals without considering their merits. The Additional CIT(A) had refused to condone a delay of nine years in filing the appeals, citing a lack of explanation or evidence from the assessee for this inordinate delay. The assessee contended that they received the Notice of Demand/Intimation on March 4, 2023, and filed the appeals immediately thereafter, disputing the claim of a nine-year delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Additional CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals, and consequently, erred in not providing a proper opportunity to the assessee to explain their case, thereby dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on their merits? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the appeals were filed promptly upon receiving the Notice of Demand/Intimation on March 4, 2023, and therefore, the allegation of an inordinate delay of nine years was baseless. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue, through the Additional CIT(A)'s order, contended that the appeals were filed with a delay of nine years, and the assessee had not provided any explanation or evidence to justify this delay, leading to the belief that there was no bonafide reason for the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan &, Shri Santosh Pethe

For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (AM)

, 97 & 98/MUM/2024 (A.Ys: 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2012-13) Mr. Appasaheb Shankarrao Hegde Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.11.2023, 28.11.2023 & 28.11.2023 pertaining to A.Ys. 2014-15, 2013-14 &.2012-13 respectively.

Since common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

The common grievance in all the appeals is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and further, erred in not giving proper opportunity to explain the case and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) show that, according to the Ld. CIT(A) the appeal was filed with a delay of nine (9) years for which the assessee did not file any explanation / evidences for such inordinate delay. The Ld. CIT(A) formed a belief that the assessee does not have any bonafide reason for such inordinate delay and dismissed the appeals.

Page No. 2 , 97 & 98/MUM/2024 (A.Ys: 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2012-13) Mr. Appasaheb Shankarrao Hegde 5. It has been brought to our notice that the assessee received the Notice of Demand / Intimation on 04.03.2023 and immediately filed the appeal. Therefore, the allegation that the appeal has been filed by inordinate delay is without any basis.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contention of the counsel. In our considered opinion the entire quarrel revolves around whether the assessee has received the Intimation / Notice of Demand on 04.03.2023 and if so, then the appeal should have been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits of the case. However, at the same time, if the revenue is able to show that the intimation was sent to the assessee in the year 2014 itself then the assessee has to bring strong evidences to show that there was no malafide intention in the inordinate delay.

Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the captioned appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to verify whether the intimation was sent in March, 2014 or March, 2023. If the revenue is not able to show that the intimation was sent in March 2014 then the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case. Otherwise, the assessee has to bring strong evidences on record to prove his bonafide and convince the Page No. 3 , 97 & 98/MUM/2024 (A.Ys: 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2012-13) Mr. Appasaheb Shankarrao Hegde Ld. CIT(A) that the inordinate delay was not with any malafide intention to the satisfaction of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh, after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →