ANABAGILU SHAMSUDDIN HARRIS,KASARAGOD vs. I T O, WARD-1, KASARAGOD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 658/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 53 days, finding the assessee's reason for delay to be plausible. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 53 days, which was not condoned. The assessee cited technical difficulties in downloading the order as the reason for the delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The primary issue was the procedural aspect of appeal filing rather than the substantive income tax matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.10.2024Pronounced: 21.10.2024

Appellant by: Shri Suresh Kumar, CA Respondent by: Ms. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 18.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, we note that there was a delay 53 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), which was not condoned by him. The reason furnished by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order was that the same was not getting downloaded from the website of the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, the order was obtained after making request to the Assessing Officer (AO). Accordingly, the assessee could not be held non-vigilant in filing the appeal within the time. According to the assessee there were compelling circumstances for Anabagilu Shamsuddin Harris delayed filing of the appeal and therefore the same should be condoned. However, the learned CIT(A) was not impressed with the submission of the assessee and accordingly dismissed the appeal as barred by time.

3.

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

The learned A.R. before us reiterated the submission as made during the appellate proceedings.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessment was framed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs.106,59,139/- which was subsequently deleted in the order passed by the learned PCIT u/s 264 of the Act. In other words, the returned income of the assessee was accepted by the Revenue. Thus, we are of the view that there was no defect in the income disclosed by the assessee in its return of income.

7.

Furthermore, considering the length of delay of 53 days, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay and set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

8.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →