LARSON CHERIAKKARA LONAPPAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 December 2024Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to link PAN and Aadhaar. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a salaried employee, filed his return of income and was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 16 lakh under Section 69A. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a 7-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned. The primary issue was the procedural aspect of the appeal filing rather than the merits of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Hearing: 12.12.2024Pronounced: 30.12.2024

O R D E R

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :

1.

The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 19th February, 2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061155662(1) and relates to the assessment year 2015-2016.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a salaried employee working in a family run hotel business. The assessee has filed his return of income for the impugned year declaring income of Rs.2,62,620 on 22nd March, 2017. The same was processed u/s.143(1) and thereafter selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 7 days.

4.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before us. In the grounds of appeal the assessee has prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A).

5.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. No one appeared on behalf of assessee, despite service of notice of hearing. Since the issue is limited to the extent of condoning the delay of seven days happened before the CIT(A), we are hearing the matter.

6.

After perusing the material available on record, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within time, as the assessee was unable to link the PAN and Aadhaar. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 7 days happened before the ld.CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say that the CIT(A) would grant sufficient opportunities to the assessee before passing any order.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →