Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee engaged in hospitality business declared rental income. The CPC reclassified part of this income, leading to an additional assessment and demand. The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A), which was dismissed on grounds of limitation without deciding on merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering sufficient cause for the delay and whether the delay should be condoned.
Sections Cited
143(1), 249(2), 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A) This appeal vide has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 28/03/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1075186614(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in hospitality business and filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring rental income under the head “profit and gains from business or profession” amounting to Rs.1,88,637/-. The CPC processed the return filed by the assessee and in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, reclassified part of the income as “income from other sources” and made an additional assessment of Rs.4,05,433/- and created a demand of Rs.6,03,348/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 28/03/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on the ground of limitation and did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits.
(C) At the time of hearing before us, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that there was sufficient cause behind filing the appeal belatedly before the learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. He drew our attention to records and pleaded that the appellant had sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, for not filing appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. He further submitted that there was no mala-fide intention behind filing the appeal belatedly. Moreover, he contended that in view of these submissions, the delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to the submissions made by learned A.R. for the assessee that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits.
(D) In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order. The learned CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay in filing of appeal in the office of learned CIT(A); and to admit the appeal. The learned CIT(A) is further directed to pass de novo order, which should be a speaking order on merits, on various grounds of appeal in the assessee’s appeal filed in the office of the learned CIT(A).
(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2025)