SHENOY VIDYASAGAR,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD2(3), KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 401/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 December 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without properly adjudicating the delay condonation petition. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income claiming deductions without supporting evidence. The AO made additions to the total income based on this. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without condoning a significant delay in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the delay condonation petition. The adequacy of the assessee's explanation for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 11.12.2024Pronounced: 11.12.2024

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shenoy Vidyasagar 3/142 5th Street Mudichur, Tambaram Pallavaram, Kanchipuram 600043 [PAN: AWPPS1368A] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Non-corporate Ward – 2(3), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant by: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 11.12.2024 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary. The assessee filed the return of income on 26.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 4,06,590/- after claiming certain deductions amounting to Rs. 2,68,552/- in Form 16 without filing any supporting evidences. Therefore, the Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward – 2(3) (hereafter “the AO”) completed the assessment vide order dated 07.06.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 6,75,140/- by making the addition of Rs. 2,68,552/-.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset I find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 117 days. The appellant filed a petition praying for condonation of the delay explaining the reasons therein. The CIT(A), without dealing with as to how the explanation tendered by the appellant is not reasonable or sufficient, merely refused to condone the delay by holding that the appellant has failed prove sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in the above circumstance I remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →