Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal due to being delayed by 814 days. The assessee's original income for AY 2012-13 was declared as ₹5,79,630/-, but the assessment was made at ₹18,38,490/-. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was attributed to the period of limitation extension granted due to Covid-19.
Held
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that a significant portion of the delay was covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order granting extension of limitation due to Covid-19. After excluding this period, the actual delay was less than 100 days.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on account of delay without considering the benefit of Supreme Court's order regarding Covid-19 period for condonation of delay.
Sections Cited
Sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Sec. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, Sec. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-
This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.08.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13.
P a g e | 2 AY 2012-13 Johnson Joseph Dsouza v/s ITO 24(2)(2)
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Officer [hereinafter referred to as Assessing Officer] erred in opening the assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Aet").
2. The Appellant submits that the opening of the assessment u/s. 148 of the Act is bad-in law, illegal and the same ought to quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer erred in passing the order u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act without providing the details / evidences / reasons recorded as referred in the assessment order.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in adding Income Rs. 12,58,865/- on basis of Annual Information Return/Form 26AS.
2. As per Form 26AS total salary income is Rs. 8,34,730/-. However Assessing Officer has made addition based on imagery figures.
3. The fixed deposits have been partially renewed by breaking existing Fixed Deposits and balance out of salary income earned during the year”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of ₹ 5,79,630/-. The assessment was made at an income of ₹18,38,490/- after making addition on account of difference amount of ₹ 9,58,865/- between receipts as per the 26AS and declared by the assessee and also P a g e | 3 AY 2012-13 Johnson Joseph Dsouza v/s ITO 24(2)(2)
unexplained fixed deposits of ₹ 3,00,000/- vide assessment order u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 24.12.2019.
Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on 16.04.2022. Vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 21.08.2023, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of being delayed by 814 days.
Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits in view of the reasons for delay submitted before the ld.CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and it is noticed that the most of the period of delay is covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, granting extension of limitation for filing appeals etc., due to Covid-19. Vide order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has to be excluded for the purpose of limitation in respect of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. After excluding above said period of 716 days, the delay in the assessee’s case comes to less than 100 days.
P a g e | 4 AY 2012-13 Johnson Joseph Dsouza v/s ITO 24(2)(2)
We, therefore, direct the Ld.CIT(A) to allow the condonation of delay and decide the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 14.04.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRI) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Mumbai Date 14.04.2024 ANIKET SINGH RAJPUT/STENO आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.