Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
Date of Hearing 11.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2016 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 30.11.2015 of CIT(A), Ghaziabad pertaining to 2011-12 AY on various grounds. The parties were heard in respect to Ground No.2 which reads as under:-
2.(i) “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad as the same has been passed without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in rejecting the application of the assessee for condontation of delay.” 2. Both the parties were heard.
The relevant facts of the case are that aggrieved by the additions made by the AO vide his order dated 18.07.2013 u/s 154 the assessee came in appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee was late. Explaining the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the statutory limitation the assessee is found to have stated as under:-
I.T.A .No.-6735/Del/2015 “As I am not so educated and not well versed with Income Tax Law and all papers of demand and penalty was lying with my consultants Sh. Atul Jindal, who also not ask me to file appeal with in prescribed time limit of 30 days. SO now when I. T. Department has raised demand then after knowing the procedure I want to file appeal before you.” (emphasis provided) 4. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the following reasoning:-
“The contention of the appellant can not be acceptable since appeal should be filed by the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that appeal papers were handed over to the advocate and then he did not file the appeal. Therefore, reasons cited for delay in filing of appeal being not plausible and the delay application cannot be entertained…….” (emphasis provided) 4.1. Both the parties were heard. The Ld.AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that as per assessee’s explanation extracted in the impugned order itself it has been recorded that all papers were with his consultants who did not advise him to file any appeal. The contradiction in the conclusion is evident. In the circumstances it was his prayer that the assessee would be satisfied if opportunity to file a proper and fresh condonation of delay petition before the CIT(A) is provided in order to explain the causes of delay for which purposes the impugned order may be set aside.
The Ld. Sr.DR in the face of the contradiction on record had no objection if the issue is restored back.
Having heard the submissions and perused the material available on record, I am of the view in the light of the submissions of the parties the limited prayer of the Ld.AR deserves to be accepted as evidently there is a contradiction in the finding recorded by the CIT(A). The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The assessee is directed to file a proper condonation of delay petition before the CIT(A) who shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is hoped that the I.T.A .No.-6735/Del/2015 opportunity so provided should not be abused as failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 28th of March, 2016.