BALLARPUR SEWA SAMITI BALLARPUR,CHANDRAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHANDRAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 296/NAG/2024Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 December 2024Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, while acknowledging the delay and lack of proper explanation, set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with one opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay and without a proper affidavit explaining the delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay without proper explanation, and whether the additions made by the AO were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Date of Hearing – 03/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

This appeal by eth assessee is against the impugned order dated 16/04/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:–

“1. That the order u/s 250 passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and facts that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing application for condonation filed by the asseessee. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the liminie the appeal filed by the asseessee.

2 Ballarpur Sewa Samiti

3. That the assessing officer erred in issue of notice u/s 148 without recording a proper satisfaction u/s 147 and passed the order which is bad in law. Hence addition made by assessing officer must be deleted.

4. That the assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 3,25,25,000 u/s 69A without appreciating the facts that the cash credit in the bank a/c represent the fees and other dues paid by the student of the school run by the trust. Hence unjust addition must be deleted.

5. That the assessing officer erred in addition of interest on the bank deposit of Rs.1,26,073 as income of the trust without appreciating the fact that it is used/applied for the object of the trust. Hence wrong addition made by assessing officer to be deleted. 6. That the applicant craves leave to add or alter any other ground/ grounds at the time of hearing.”

3.

When the case was taken up for hearing neither the assessee nor any of its Authorised Representatives appeared on behalf of the assessee. There si no application for adjournment either. However, the Bench was of the opinion the appeal can be dispose off in the absence of the assessee and after hearing the learned D.R.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative strongly objected stating that the assessee neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the learned CIT(A) appeared and hence the delay may not be condoned and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

5.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the assessee has not furnished Affidavit explaining the delay before the learned CIT(A) and resultantly the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeal filed by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and also by following the principles of natural justice,

3 Ballarpur Sewa Samiti we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves one opportunity to establish its case before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to his file for denovo adjudication on merit and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to furnish Affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by adducing proper evidence. Needless to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before adjudication of issues on merit and pass order in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2024

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →