Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 31.10.2023, and pertains to assessment year 2018-19.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The Order of the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC (CITA in short) is without jurisdiction, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.
For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction.
3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard erred in dismissing the appeal in limine stating that it was it was not a fit case for condonation of delay.
4. For that the appellant had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant could have derived no benefit by filing the appeal belatedly and that the same could not have been the intention of the appellant.
For that the Assessment Order u/s.147 has been passed without complying with the statutory requirements of law.
7. The Learned AO erred in determining the taxable income at Rs.37,56,584/-.
8. The Learned AO erred in considering both the gross salary of Rs.25,28,242/- and net salary of Rs.12,28,242/- as income from salary at Rs.37,56,584/-
The Learned AO erred in not considering the eligible deductions like Professional tax, Interest on housing loan as per Form 16 and also in not considering the deductions under Chapter VIA as per Form 16.
The Learned AO erred in not giving credit of the tax deducted at source by the employer as per Form 16.
For that the appellant objects to the levy of interest u/s.234B.
PRAYER
For these grounds raised and such other grounds that may be raised, may be altered, amended or modified, with the leave of the Hon'ble Bench before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to a) Condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merits and / or b) Delete the addition of Rs.37,56,584/- made as income from other salary by considering the net salary, giving credit to the eligible deductions and the tax deducted at source. c) Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed its return of income for AY 2018-19. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act") for the reasons recorded, as per which, there was information with the AO that the assessee has received salary income which is taxable under the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any details, even though, the case was posted for hearing on many occasions. Therefore, the AO passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act, and determined total income of Rs.37,56,584/- by making additions towards variation in respect of income relatable to TDS u/s.192A of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority was delayed by 160 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal.
According to the assessee, he was not aware of provisions of law to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the assessment order.
However, immediately after came to know that an appeal needs to be filed, he took advice from a professional and filed the appeal on 11.09.2023 with a delay of 159 days. The reasons given by the assessee was not convinced the First Appellate Authority and accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal.
5. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that although, the assessee has explained reasons for delay in filing of the appeal, but the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee unadmitted with a vague observation that the assessee has not furnished a plausible explanation for delay. Therefore, he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be condoned and appeal should be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.
6. The Ld.DR, Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT, submitted that the reasons given by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority does not come under reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the assessee unadmitted and their orders should be upheld.
We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. No doubt, ignorance of law is not an excuse. It is for the assessee to aware of the law and pursue their case before the authorities. But, at the same time, when the assessee explains that he was not aware of the law and also took support from a professional and filed appeal which caused delay of 160 days, in our considered view, the Ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal for advancing substantial justice. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court very clearly held that in a case, a meritorious case is thrown out of judicial scrutiny on technical grounds, the cause of substantial justice would be defeated. At the same time, appeal is decided ignoring technicalities, the purpose of advancement of substantial justice can be achieved. The sum and substance of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107, appeal should not be decided on technical grounds.
In the present case, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal, even though, the assessee has explained the reasons for such delay. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) is clearly erred in not admitting the appeal filed by the assessee, and thus, we direct the First Appellate Authority to condone the delay of 159 days in filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority and admit the appeal filed by the assessee to decide the issues on merits.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 29th day of January, 2024, in Chennai.