GURU SANNAPPA SAJJN ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1794/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 October 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits. The appeal was actually filed within the prescribed time limit, making the dismissal improper.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a perceived delay. The CIT(A) believed the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit based on an incorrect assessment order date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the correct filing date and adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 21.10.2024Pronounced: 21.10.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of CIT(A) dated 05.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.

2.

At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte Order dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay (if any) in filing the appeal before him. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:

“3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 was made on 13.10.2023 which got served upon the appellant on 13.10.2023 but the appeal was filed on 11.04.2024 i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30 days, whereas, the appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w,s 144. Further, the contention of the appellant regarding delay in filing of appeal is without any substance in it. The appellant was required to file appeal within 30days of the receipt of demand notice. However, the appellant has not done so. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, 1 am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since, appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.

4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on merits.”

3.

The learned AR submitted that assessee had filed the appeal on time. It was submitted that Assessment Order was passed on 19.03.2024 and appeal was instituted before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.04.2024. It was submitted that assessee had committed a mistake in mentioning the date of Assessment Order as 13.10.2023. It was submitted that the date 13.10.2023 is the date on which the notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued. Therefore, it was contended that CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits.

4.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

5.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in this case, the Assessment Order has been passed on 19.03.2024 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The appeal has been filed on 11.04.2024 i.e., well within the time prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits. Hence, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the files of the FAA.

The CIT(A) is directed the adjudicate the issues on merits. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →