Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 386 days in filing the appeal. The assessee contended that the delay condonation application was filed during a physical hearing, but the appeal later migrated to the NFAC, which seemingly overlooked this application. The assessee requested the matter be restored to consider the condonation application.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without condoning the significant delay. The assessee argued that the delay condonation application was filed and considered during the physical hearing stage, but the subsequent migration to the NFAC resulted in it being overlooked. The Tribunal found merit in restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for proper consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, and if the delay condonation application was duly considered, especially after the appeal migrated to NFAC.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 30.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13.
At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 386 days in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) had observed at para 5.1 of the impugned order that assessee has failed to submit any reasons for the delay in filing the appeal
The learned AR submitted that assessee had filed delay condonation application during the course of physical hearing before the CIT(A). It was submitted that later appeal migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and NFAC had failed to take note of the condonation application. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter may be restored to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation application filed during the course of physical hearing.
Learned DR was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Initially, the appeal before the CIT(A) was being heard physically. Assessee filed delay condonation application along with Form 35 before the CIT(A). Further, condonation application during the course of physical hearing was also filed. Copies of the same are placed on record. Subsequently, the appeal of the assessee had migrated to NFAC. The CIT(A), at the NFAC, without taking notice of the condonation application filed by the assessee had dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 386 days. In the interest of justice and equity, we restore the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider the condonation applications which are already on record and take a decision on the condonation application filed by the assessee in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.