TARACHAND PUSARAMJI MAHAKALKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 90/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 November 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay with proper evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay and without a proper explanation. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay and upholding additions, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 250

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 Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Date of Hearing – 26/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024

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

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 23/12/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. Whether on the facts and in law, the order passed by learned CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting request for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

2 Tarachand Pusaramji Mahakalkar

3.

Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of learned AO in making addition Rs.89,33,400/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act to income of the assessee, ignoring the facts of the case as well as submissions and documentary evidences filed by the assessee.

4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of learned AO in making addition Rs.3,53,287/- as undisclosed salary, ignoring the facts of the case as well as submissions and documentary evidences filed by the assessee.

5.

Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. 6. The Assessee craves to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.”

3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that there is delay in filing the appeal before him and submitted that it may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) to adjudication the issues raised on merit and in accordance with law.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below.

5. We have heard the rival arguments, 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, we are of the opinion that 3 Tarachand Pusaramji Mahakalkar 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 file 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.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/11/2024

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →