JAGDISH JAYANTILAL PATEL ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) ,NAGPUR , NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 238/NAG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 June 2024AY 2007-2008Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause. It found that the merits of the case were not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities and therefore set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals with a significant delay of 1244 days due to the critical medical condition of their representative. The appeals challenge additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities properly adjudicated the issue of unexplained credits. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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 Manoj G. Moryani
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Date of Hearing – 27/06/2024 Date of Order – 27/06/2024

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

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 02/12/2013, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–III, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively.

2.

Since both these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues, except variation in figures, which arose out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals

Jagdish Jayantilal Patel ITA no.237–287/Nag./2017 were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order.

3.

The sole common issue raised by the assessee in its appeals is whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer at ` 15,00,000 for the assessment year 2006–07 and ` 8,50,000, for the assessment year 2007–08, on account of unexplained credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").

4.

We find that there is a delay of 1244 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay and an affidavit in support of such application has also been filed wherein it has been filed wherein it has been stated by the assessee that all the affairs of the assessee related to income tax matter were looked by the maternal uncle Shri Chhaganlal Kunverjibhai Patel, the main Director of Gigeo Construction who was continuously suffering from various critical medical problems and later on detected "Cancer". He also filed medical certificate to prove his health condition. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee prayed that the delay be condoned.

5.

After considering the facts and circumstance of the issue relating to condonation of delay in filing the present appeals, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, the delay 1244 days in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned.

6.

Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue on merit properly

Jagdish Jayantilal Patel ITA no.237–287/Nag./2017 which ought to have been dealt with in accordance with law. Therefore, considering the submissions of the assessee, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity is hereby granted to the assesse to substantiate its case before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside and remit the entire matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the matter denovo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in these appeals for the A.Y. 2006–07 and 2007–08 are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2006–07 and 2007–08 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/06/2024

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →