THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2744/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 December 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) ought to have issued a defect notice to the assessee before dismissing the appeal. The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file a condonation application and afford a reasonable opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a three-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a technical glitch and intervening holidays.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without issuing a defect notice and providing an opportunity to explain the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND

Hearing: 17.12.2024Pronounced: 18.12.2024

आदेश /O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 26.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

2. At the very outset, we notice that this appeal has been dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay of three days in filing the appeal before him. The ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had taken note of the reason (delay was due to technical glitch) stated by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings but rejected the appeal of the assessee stating that assessee has neither filed documentary evidence nor filed any details of grievance raised. It was further submitted by the ld.AR that the CIT(A) ought to have issued defect notice to the assessee calling for its explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, before dismissing the appeal in limine.

3.

The ld.DR was duly heard.

4.

We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 3 days. The ld.AR stated that according to the assessee there is no delay in filing the appeal because of the intervening holidays during the above mentioned period for filing the appeal. We also notice that no defect notice has been issued from the office of the CIT(A). The principle of natural justice requires that notice should be issued to the assessee seeking his explanation why the delay in filing the appeal before him cannot be condoned. In the instant case, such notice was never issued by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be restored back to the files of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore the matter to the files of the CIT(A) so that a proper condonation application if required can be filed by the assessee concerned and on receipt of the same, the CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee before a decision is taken on the condonation application. If the CIT(A) is satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal, needless to state, the CIT(A) shall decide the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →