LAKKONDAHALLI NARAYANAPPA NARAYANASWAMY ,HOSKOTE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers

ITA 1364/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 August 2024AY 2019-20Bench: this Tribunal commonly for both the assessment years under consideration against the impugned order. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the assessee regarding the defect to be rectified and the assessee filed another appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 thereby causing a delay of 57 days. It is noted that it was a bonafide mistake on behalf of assessee in filing consolidated appeal for both the years under consideration. As the assessee had filed ITA No. 1065/Bang/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 within1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) occurred during the COVID period, and the Supreme Court had extended the limitation period. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the delay and that no notice of hearing was issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2019-20.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against a consolidated order of the CIT(A). The assessee initially filed a consolidated appeal for two assessment years, which was later rectified by filing a separate appeal for one year, causing a delay of 57 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to a delay of 474 days in filing before the CIT(A) and a subsequent delay of 105 days in filing the rectified appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CA

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

& 1364/Bang/2024 PER BENCH Present appeals has been filed by assessee against a consolidated order dated 28.03.2024 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20.

At the outset, it is noted that assessee filed only one Form 36 before this Tribunal commonly for both the assessment years under consideration against the impugned order. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the assessee regarding the defect to be rectified and the assessee filed another appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 thereby causing a delay of 57 days. It is noted that it was a bonafide mistake on behalf of assessee in filing consolidated appeal for both the years under consideration. As the assessee had filed for A.Y. 2018-19 within the period of limitation, upon removing the defect by filing separate appeal for A.Y. 2019-20, the 2nd appeal is considered to have been filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay if any in filing appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 is unintentional and is condoned.

We note that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was on 28.03.2024. It is further noted that assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) against the assessment orders dated 26.04.2021 for both the years under consideration on 12.09.2022. The Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that, as there was delay of 474 days dismissed the appeals by observing that there & 1364/Bang/2024 was no sufficient cause for the unreasonable delay in filing the appeals.

3.1 We note that the limitation period for filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) expired during the covid period and pursuant to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2021 and further by an order dated 10.02.2022, the limitation was extended upto 30.05.2022. Thus in our view, the delay in filing the present appeals has to be considered from 01.06.2022 to 12.09.2022 being the date of filing of appeals before Ld.CIT(A). It is surprising to note that the Ld.CIT(A) considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and excluded the period upto 30.05.2022 by noting that the delay in filing the appeal was only 105 days. However, it also noted that, the assessee was not granted opportunity to explain the delay caused in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that, the delay of 105 days delay to be an extraordinary delay without considering the reasons that assessee had to offer. We also note that no notice of hearing was issued by the Ld.CIT(A) as per the notings in the impugned order placed before us.

3.2 In the interest of justice, we remit these appeals back to the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay of 105 days and to decide the issue & 1364/Bang/2024 on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee in both the appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →