RAMESH S,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1045/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 July 2024AY 2010-11Bench: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 2802 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to this delay. The assessee sought another opportunity to explain the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed solely on grounds of inordinate delay, or if an opportunity to explain the delay should be granted to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 01-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 10-03-2015. In the assessment order, Ld. AO re-computed capital gains.

2.

The first appeal was filed with a delay of 2802 days and accordingly, dismissed in limine. The Ld. AR has sought another opportunity before Ld. CIT(A) which has been opposed by revenue.

3.

It is clear that first appeal was filed with inordinate delay of 2802 days. Nevertheless, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the delay before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee has to explain the inordinate delay and the adjudication may be done accordingly. Needless to add that opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-07-2024 DS आदेशकीFितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →