MANNUR RAMJEE RAJKUMAR REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to explain the delay. The assessee contended that principles of natural justice were not followed.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly followed the principles of natural justice by providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B ’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member ) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 21.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 04.08.2017 declaring the total income of Rs.2,64,51,270/-. The CPC, Bangalore passed the order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’) dated 28.03.2019 determining the taxable total income at Rs.2,95,12,060/-. Being aggrieved, assessee challenged the said order u/s 143(1) of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has not given proper chance to explain the reason for delay in filing appeal hence, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(A), assessee will demonstrate the reasons for delay in filing appeal and prosecute the appeal properly. Ld.CIT-DR relied upon order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We find that ld.CIT(A) has not given effective opportunity of hearing to appellant to explain the delay in filing appeal although it was conspicuously mentioned at Sr. No.15 in Form 35 that ‘The detail affidavit explaining the reasons for delay will be filed at the time of hearing’. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) to look afresh to the explanation/reason for delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A), keeping in mind
- 3 - Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases including in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 relating to condonation of delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on condonation of delay in filing appeal as well as on merits if after condoning delay appeal is admitted by ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) will provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee during the hearing of the appeal afresh. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal as per law.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026