GAURAV GOYAL (HUF),MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 217/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 February 2025AY 2020-211 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 referred to the Supreme Court's decision in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that condonation of delay is discretionary and aims to achieve substantial justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay before the first appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2021-21 against the order of the CIT(A), which refused to condone a 2-month delay in filing the first appeal. The original assessment order by the AO treated agricultural income of Rs. 25.87 Lacs as 'income from other sources' for non-substantiation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to adjudicate the matter on merits, and whether the agricultural income was substantiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-21 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15-05-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-09-2022. In the assessment order, Ld. AO treated the agricultural income of Rs.25.87 Lacs as ‘income from other sources’ since the assessee failed to substantiate the same. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the first appeal for want of condonation of delay of 2 months approx. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

Summarizing various arguments favoring the case of the assessee, Ld. AR stated that assessee is regularly engaged in carrying out agricultural activities since financial year 2018-19 on certain land which is taken on lease which is evidenced by lease deed as placed before lower authorities. The Ld. AR pleaded for admission of first appeal and also sought another opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case. The Ld. Sr. DR has opposed any interference in the impugned order.

3.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123) held that condonation of delay is matter of discretion of the court. The delay of very long range could be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. The primary objective is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advocate substantial justice. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but to seek the remedy promptly. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by the reason of legal injury. Keeping these principles in mind, we condone the delay before first appellate authority and direct Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →