NATA RAJA TRADERS,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member :
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1065544734(1), dated 11/06/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2022-23.
Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a licensed commission agent in Agricultural Market
2 Committee Yard (AMCY), Guntur which is formed under the rules and regulations of Government of Andhra Pradesh. The assessee, being a commission agent, received 2% commission from the farmers on their sale proceedings to licensed traders / buyers / exporters as per the AMCY Rules. The assessee received selling price of farmers from the exporters through cheque / NEFT / RTGS and paid to the farmers after deduction of their commission. Thus, the assessee received the commission @ 2% from the farmers and credited to Profit & Loss Account as income. While making payments, the exporters / buyers / traders have applied the provisions of section 194Q of the Act and 194A of the Act for delayed payments, if any. The assessee had mentioned these details in column 14(IV) of the P & L Account. However, while processing the assessee’s return of income, the Ld. AO / CPC disallowed the assessee’s claim of TDS credit and passed the intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Act on 17/02/2023. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO / CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad belatedly with a delay of 14 days.
On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad the assessee explained that due to ill heath of one of
3 one of the partners of the assessee, the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time and therefore pleaded for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad rejected the assessee’s plea for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee’s appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 14 days and adjudicated the appeal on merits. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., ill health of Mr. Krishna Reddy Mettu, partner of the assessee.
4 The Ld. AR further submitted that in support of the reasons advanced by the assessee for filing of the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit before the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, the assessee has also made detailed written submissions explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not on account of negligence or any deliberate act of the assessee. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that without considering the explanation and the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by denying the condonation petition filed before him. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, to decide the appeal on merits.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The Ld. DR further submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, even though there is a delay, the onus is on the assessee to explain each day’s delay with proper evidence. The Ld. DR also submitted that since the assessee has not discharged his onus with regard to explaining
5 the reason for condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)- 2, Ahmedabad, has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as inadmissible. In toto, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and pleaded to uphold the decision of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is a fact that on being aggrieved by the disallowance made by the Ld. DDIT-CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad with a delay of 14 days. On perusal of the appeal record placed before me, it appears that with respect to the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee has explained its reasons by stating that due to ill health of the assessee’s partner, who is looking after the tax matters on behalf of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time before the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad. In this situation, I am of the view that the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad ought to have considered the explanation given by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal and ought to have disposed of the appeal on merits. Instead, the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad
6 dismissed the assessee’s appeal as not maintainable without considering the ill health of the partner of the assessee and the delay is only 14 days. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad since there is no willful negligence or latches on the part of the assessee. Therefore, I hereby set-aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad and thereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Further, I also hereby caution the assessee to cooperate before the Ld. CIT(A) in their proceedings, otherwise Ld. Revenue Authorities are at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law based on the material available on record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
7 Pronounced in the open Court on 23rd August, 2024.
Sd/- (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�ी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) �याियकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated :23/08/2024 OKK - SPS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधा�रती/ The Assessee – Nata Raja Traders, D.No. 24-11-170, Edugondula Sandu, R. Agraharam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522003. 2. राज�व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522006. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4.आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गाड� फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
