Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing an adequate opportunity for hearing. The assessee attributed the delay in filing the appeal to the COVID-19 pandemic and communication issues, providing an affidavit explaining these reasons. The assessee also faced disallowance of expenses and reduction in carry-forward business loss.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 312-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation and the circumstances. The Tribunal observed that the assessee remained ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and thus couldn't present their defense. However, to decide the matter on merits, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with one more opportunity for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be admitted despite a significant delay in filing, and whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal was justified without providing adequate hearing opportunities.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 250, 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 371/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 21-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2018-19 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without deciding the appeal on merit.
2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the assessee’s ground relating to the adhoc 2 ANUKAMPA HOMES PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,32,93,545/- being 10% of project development expenses and other administrative expenses of Rs.13,29,35,464/-‘’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 312 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed a condonation application dated 27-03-2024 praying therein as under:- ‘’……However, the order came to the notice of the assessee on 04-03-2024 as stated in the affidavit enclosed herewith. Thus, there is no delay in filing of appeal from the date of communication of order but there is delay of 312 days from the date of order. The said delay is for a reasonable casue as explained in the affidavit of assessee. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.’’ To this effect, the assessee has also filed an affidavit praying therein to condone the delay, giving following reasons. ‘’2. That AO passed the assessment order by disallowing Rs.132,93,545/- being 10% of project development expenses and other administrative expenses and thus reduced the carry forward business loss of Rs.9,04,42,914/-.
3. That against this order appeal was filed on 27-05-2-2021. The ld. CIT(A) issued notice u/s 250 on 20-10-2021, 21-12- 2021 and 06-04-2022 which was during the Covid period and therefore these notices could not be responded. Thereafter, after around 1 year notice issued on 16-03-2023 was not received and therefore, it could not be responded. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21-03-2023.
3 ANUKAMPA HOMES PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 4. That the said order came to the notice of assessee when penalty order u/s 270A darted 04-03-2024 was received on the e-mail address of CA Shri Yogesh Vijay and CA R.K. Malpani.
That accordingly, the appeal is now filed before the Hon’ble ITAT with a request to condone the delay which is for the reasons stated above though from the date of knowledge of the order there is no delay. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR further objected to such inordinate delay of 312 days made by the assesee in filing the appeal. The ld. DR also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Bomaby High Court in the case of Vama Apparels (India ) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT,Central Circle -42 [2019] 102 Taxmann.com 398 (Bomab) wherein the Hon’ble Bench has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as to the condonation of delay and allowed the appeal of the Revenue. 2.3 The Bench heard both the parties and perused the submissions of the respective parties and the case law advanced by the ld. DR. In this case, it is noticed that the assessee has submitted the sufficient reason through his affidavit and application for condondation of delay (supra). Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and the narration as made by the assessee in his affidavit (supra), the Bench condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assesse, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
4 ANUKAMPA HOMES PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’3.8 I have perused the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B). The appellant has not furnished any submissions in support the grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings. Taking into account the entire conspectus of this case, I see no reason to disturb the categorical findings of the assessing officer regarding assessment of the total loss of the appellant at Rs.9,04,42,914/-. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that one more chance may be given to contest the case before the AO and to submit all the necessary documents to settle the dispute in question. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) 3.4 The Bench heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.2.000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. However, I am of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of 5. ITA NO. 371/JP/2024 ANUKAMPA HOMES PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 05/08/2024.
¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 05 /08/2024 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- M/s. Anukampa Homes Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.371/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत