Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Madhuri Chinthamaneni (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 05.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2019-20. 02. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Id. First Appellate Authority confirming the order U/s 144 r w s 144B of the I. T. Act is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case.
The Id. First Appellate Authority is not justified in rejecting the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. The Id. First Appellate Authority is not justified in not considering the appeal on merits.
The Id. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the denial of exemptions for retirement benefits of Rs. 24,58,781/- claimed u/s. 10 of the IT Act.
The Id. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition of deductions claimed under Chapter VIA i) Medical insurance of Rs.49,360/- u/s 80D and ii) interest u/s 80TTA amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.
The appellant prays for leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary during the A.Y. 2019-20, e-filed her return of income on 12/02/2020 declaring total income of Rs.47,89,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and various notices under the Act were issued to the assessee by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) . However the assessee did not responded to the notices issued by the Ld. AO . Consequently the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 22/09/2021 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.73,07,470/-.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was delay of 209 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.
5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us, contending that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal without appreciating the merits of the case. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) could not be filed in time due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee. The same reasons were also brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A). However, without considering the reasons given for delay, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay. Hence the Ld.AR requested before the Bench to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
5.1 The learned AR further submitted that the assessee could not comply to the notices of Ld. AO due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee. He also contended that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be disposed of without any documentary evidence being produced. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct the proceedings diligently and get the matter disposed of on merits.