Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee was penalized Rs. 10,000 under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 99-day delay in filing, without condoning the delay or providing an opportunity for explanation.
Held
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay and then decide the appeal on merits if sufficient cause is established.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) violated natural justice by dismissing an appeal due to delay without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the reasons for such delay.
Sections Cited
Section 272A(1)(d), Section 142(1), Section 250, Section 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 07.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the ITO, Ward-1(1), Bathinda dated 31.08.2022. only has been imposed by the AO for non-compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act 61, on at least four occasions as ascertainable from the penalty order and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed for non-compliance of statutory notices.
The matter carried in appeal before the Ld CIT(A), has been dismissed u/s 249(2) of the Act, by refusing to admit the appeal to adjudicate on merits on account of delay in filing the same by 99 (Ninety Nine) Days.
Now the assessee is before the Tribunal on eight grounds of appeal as per form 36 , challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act and the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted at the onset , that principles of natural justice has been violated , in as much the Ld. first appellate authority has refused to admit the appeal for hearing on merits because the same was belatedly filed by ninety nine days and the said delay was not condoned in spite of existence of sufficient reasons for the delay resulting in dismissal of the appeal u/s 249(2) of the Act.
5. He further submitted that the reasons for delay was contained in Form 35 , and if the Ld first appellate authority is not prima facie satisfied, he is under an obligation to allow the assessee an opportunity of hearing to explain the reasons for such delay , before dismissing the said appeal and in the instant case no such opportunity has been given , which results in violation of natural justice, and he prays for such opportunity.
We have heard the rival contentions (and though it is a case of imposition of penalty of a minimum amount) we find that in the instant case the assessee has raised issues regarding violation of natural justice. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed on the grounds of delay in filing, because the appellate authority was prima facie not satisfied with the reasons for the delay contained in form 35 , but in such a case, on the principles of natural justice , the assessee should have been allowed an opportunity to explain the reasons to establish “ sufficient cause ” to the satisfaction of the appellate authority, and as such we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the Ld. first appellate authority , to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and only if the same is satisfactorily explained , the appeal will be decided on merits on the grounds contained in form 35.
In the result the appeal of the assessee remanded back to the Ld. first appellate authority and as such the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.