PAWAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6273/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 April 2016AY 2009-103 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 delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the difference in addresses. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the assessment was completed at a higher income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of two weeks. The assessee contended that the delay was due to a discrepancy in their address.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to a delay without considering the reasonable cause and substantial justice, especially given the address discrepancy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kr. Tandon, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DR

O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, V.P. :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), relating to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,85,654/- on 30.09.2009. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.15,03,070/-. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal as the appeal filed by the assessee was late by two weeks. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has taken following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The CIT(A) has passed the order which is bad in law and against the facts of the case.

2. The CIT [A] has erred to dismiss the appeal in limini by observing delay of 14 days with out considering substantial justice vis - a- vis technical consideration by disregarding the reasonable cause as stated in the condonation application. thereby also disregarded the HON.Supreme court in the case of collector, land acquisition v master Katiji.

3. The CIT(A) has not exercised there powers uls 249(3) judiciously, therefore, the order be annulled to be reheard. The above grounds are with out prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”

3.

Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to page 1 of Paper Book, wherein, copy of acknowledgement of filing the return is contained, wherein, following address has been given – “Shri Pawan Kumar, 473/20, Shakti Nagar, Pataudi Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana”. Ld. counsel referred to the assessment order, wherein, the address of the assessee has been given as follows - “Shri Pawan Kumar, CW-66, Malibu Town, Sohna Road, Gurgaon”. Ld. counsel referred to the synopsis filed by assessee, wherein, it is pointed out that the assessee came to know about the assessment order when incidentally he had gone to meet counsel for other work but by that time the filing of appeal before ld. CIT(A) was late by 14 days.

4.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. Admittedly, there is difference in the address mentioned in the return of income and the address given in the assessment order as well as in ld. CIT(A)’s order. Under such circumstances, in order to impart of substantial justice to assessee, I condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) and set-aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the assessee’s appeal de- novo, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of April, 2017.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →