Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 30.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.02.2015 passed by learned ITO- 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal.
Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal
We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused the case record including the orders of lower-authorities.
On perusal, we find that though the CIT(A) has decided assessee’s first-appeal on merit in Para 1.3 but prior to that in Para No. 1.2, he has dismissed assessee’s appeal as time-barred. So far time-barring issue is concerned, the CIT(A) has noted that the assessee filed first-appeal before him on 13.04.2018 against the assessment-order dated 26.02.2015 passed by AO which was not within statutory period of 30 days. The order passed by CIT(A) in this regard is re-produced below:
“1.2 Condonation : The present appeal arises from the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 ,of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08 dated 26.02.2015. As such, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days of receipt of the order. However, the appeal was filed only on `13.04.2018. The appellant claimed in appeal memo that the above order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was served on 15.03.2018 and has stated that there was no delay in filing of appeal in the Form -35 and has not filed any condonation. However, the appellant has not provided any proof/evidence for the receipt of order only on 15.03.2018. Based on the above facts, the appellant’s case is liable to be dismissed as the appeal was barred by limitation.”
Ld. AR appearing for assessee has filled a “Synopsis of Arguments” duly signed by assessee, which is scanned and reproduced below for an immediate reference:
Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal
In Point No. 1 and 2 of above synopsis, the assessee has claimed that he was not served with the notices u/s 148/142(1) and the assessment- order. In Para No. 3, he has submitted that the assessment-order was ultimately received by him on 15.03.2018 after filing application to provide copy of the same and immediately thereafter first-appeal was filed on 13.04.2018, hence the first-appeal was filed in time and the CIT(A) was not correct in dismissing assessee’s appeal on the ground of delayed filing. This submission made before us needs to looked into by CIT(A) only as there was a substantial delay in filing first-appeal before him. Therefore, in the situation, we are restoring this matter back to CIT(A) for consideration of assessee’s submission and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Before parting, we may make it clear that if the CIT(A) condones the delay after being satisfied with assessee’s submission and admits the appeal, he shall decide the merit of case without being influenced by his previous order. As pointed out by Ld. AR from Para 6 of CIT(A)’s order, the previous adjudication by CIT(A) on merit was ex-parte despite assessee seeking adjournments to file rejoinder to remand-report of AO.
Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 26.07.2024