Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for being filed beyond the prescribed period. The assessee's consultant failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time, resulting in a delay of 614 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay and an opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 614 days, noting that the delay was unintentional and beyond the assessee's control. It was held that it is in the interest of equity and justice to restore the matter for fresh adjudication by the AO, providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication by the AO.
Sections Cited
54
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 841/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Addl. ld. CIT(A)-5, Mumbai dated 15-05-2024 for the assessment year 2011-12 raising following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld.CIT(A) has rejected the application for of delay in filing the appeal and passed the order without considering the merit which is illegal, arbitrary and invalidation of the principles of natural justice and hence needs to be quashed.
2. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.11,42,150/- considering the deposit in the bank as unexplained.
2 DEEPAK JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(1), JAIPUR 3. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,51,289/- considering the sales value as long term capital gain without allowing the benefit of index value of purchase cost and exemption u/s 54. 2.1 At the very outset after perusal of the case file, the Bench noticed that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A) as the same was filed beyond the period prescribed under the law. 2.2 The ld. AR appearing on behalf before the Bench submitted that the assessee was not aware about the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) and, therefore, he could not file any formal application. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) by rejecting the appeal of the assessee has not provided any opportunity to the assessee regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit to condone the delay of 614 days which took place in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and thus prayed therein as under:- ‘’4. That when I came to know about the demand, I tried to communicate to the consultant but he was not responding then I communicated to other consultant and discussed the whole case and thereafter filed the appeal before the ld CIT(A) on 06-08-2020. This resulted in a delay of 614 days in filing the appeal. The reason behind the delay was that I had appointed a consultant to handle my income tax case; however the consultant failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Moreover, the e-mail address and phone number quoted on the income tax appeal portal belonged to the consultant and to the nature of job I was not in town and hence I was not aware of the orders and notices passed by the AO or further notices issued on me.
That this delay was purely unintentional and beyond my control.
That I humbly pray that the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to provide me an opportunity to produce the documents for verification for general natural justice.’’