Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ �यायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.: 1012/Chny/2024 िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Sri Raghavendra Granthalaya v. Non-Corporate Ward -9(1), Seva and Educational Chennai. Charitable Trust, 16/116, Thulasinga PerumalKoil Street, Thirumala Flats, Triplicane, Chennai. [PAN:AAITS-7823-B] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�क�ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. K. MeenakchiSundaram, Advocate ��यथ�क�ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. D. HemaBhupal, JCIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 20.03.2024.
The assessee is a Trust, filed its return of Income for the A Y 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring a Total Income of Rs.14,17,250/-. The DCIT, CPC passed the order U/s.143(1) dated 09.03.2019, making an addition of Rs.71,87,397/-. Due to the ‘validation errors’
:-2-: ITA. No:1012/Chny/2024 in the then existed e-filing portal, the assessee had filed the ITR declaring a Total Income of Rs.14,17,248/- instead of Rs.NIL Income.
Aggrieved by the order of CPC dated 09.03.2019 U/s.143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT(A)on 05/07/2019 with a delay in filing the appeal by 88 days.
The ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Kolkata without giving any opportunity to the assessee for deciding the case on merits, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order dated 20/03/2024, stating that the appellant was not having ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing the appeal by 88 days. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1, the assessee is before us.
The ld.AR stated that the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal exparte, without giving any opportunity to the assessee is erroneous in law and prayed for remanding the matter back to the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 for adjudication on the merits of the case.
:-3-: ITA. No:1012/Chny/2024
The ld.DR did not raise any objections for the same.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1. It is noted that the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 has passed the impugned order exparte without condoning the delay of 88 days and without considering the merits of the case. To meet the ends of justice, we remit back the appeal to the file of the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 for denovo adjudication and direct the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.