Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 147-day delay without condonation. The Ld.CIT(A) noted that no separate application for condonation or supporting affidavit was filed. The assessee claimed it did not receive the assessment order and that the Director who gave a statement expired during the COVID period, causing successors to be unaware of proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed during the COVID period and the Director's death caused a lack of awareness among successors. The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for delay to be deserving of empathetic consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of limitation without condoning the delay, and whether the reasons for the delay are justifiable.
Sections Cited
133A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is submitted that, the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal before him. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that, the assessee neither filed any separate application for condonation of delay nor filed any affidavit to substantiate the reasons for such delay. He thus dismissed the appeal for want of limitation.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
The Ld.AR submitted that in form 35, the assessee had mentioned the reasons for delay. The Ld.AR referred to columns. 14 and 15 in Form 35, where details regarding delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) was stated. He submitted that, the assessee therein that it did not receive physical copy of the assessment order. It is also submitted that the Director whose statement was recorded expired and the successor Director could not anticipate the outcome and was not aware about the management and the entire proceedings. The Ld.AR thus prayed for an opportunity to explain the delay along with the issues on merits.
3.1. The Ld.DR was also of the opinion that the issue deserves to be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
It is noted that the assessment order is passed during the covid period. Further during survey proceedings u/s. 133A Managing Director of assessee Shri G A Ravish was confronted and his statement was recorded, and the Managing Director later on expired during the covid period. Thereafter the successors could not immediately take cognizance of the affairs of the company and pending proceedings. Under such circumstances that remains uncontroverted the reason submitted by the assessee in filing a belated appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be considered empathetically.
4.1. In the interest of justice, we remand this appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issue on merits afresh. The assessee is directed to file all necessary documents in support of its claim. Nevertheless the Ld.CIT(A) shall also provide the copy of the statement recorded of Late G A Ravish, in the event the same is not provided to the assessee at the relevant time. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass detailed order on merits after considering the documents. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August, 2024.