PATHAPATHI VIJAYAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 356/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 June 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal but considered the extension of limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic as per the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal also noted that the notices from the AO were issued during the COVID period. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable due to a delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the assessee's business being shut down and lack of staff. The assessment was framed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 134 Taxmann.com 307
    134 Taxmann.com 307 · 2022 · SC
    53 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 30.05.2024Pronounced: 05.06.2024

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi dated 02/01/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/ 250/ 2023-24/1059267076(1) for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

In the present case, the assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act vide order dated 26/03/2022. The assessee against such order filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) dated 01/08/2022, whereas the time limit for filing the appeal expired on 25/04/2022 as specified u/s 249(2) of the Act. Thus, a delay of 98 days has occurred in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal by the assessee was not explained and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable.

3.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

The ld. AR before us contended that the business of the assessee has been shut down and there was no supporting staff available with the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities. Furthermore, the entire receipts and term deposits on gross basis have been treated as income of the assessee, which is not sustainable. The ld. AR further prayed to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the AO as the assessment was made ex- parte.

5.

On the other hand, the ld. DR contended that the assessee being negligent should not be given further opportunity. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee as pointed out by the ld. CIT(A). However, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court on account of COVID pandemic has extended the time limit for filing various appeal in the case of MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC). As such, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the time limit from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 for calculating the limitation period for filing the various petitions/ statements/ . applications/ appeal and other proceedings. Furthermore, another period of 90 days was granted for making the necessary compliances from 01/03/2022. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under:

In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15- 3-2020 till 28-2-2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1- 3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 6.1 On calculating the period of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in the case on hand, we find that the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is very insignificant after considering the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed above. Considering the above, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).

6.2 We further note that the assessee has also not complied with the notices issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings. As such, we find that there were 2 notices issued by the AO dated 10/11/2021 and 08/02/2022 u/s 142(1) of the Act, which were not admittedly complied with by the assessee, but we note that such notices were issued during the COVID period as discussed above. Thus, considering all these facts stated above and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →