DEEPAK TRADING COMPANY,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 552/PUN/2024Status: HeardITAT Pune11 June 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI S.S.GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay were valid. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) belatedly by eight months. The assessee cited being out of India and the dissolution of the partnership firm as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Vaze – AR
For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel – CIT(DR)
Hearing: 11/06/2024

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals)[NFAC] dated 04.01.2024 for A.Y.2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi, is not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis delay of only 249 days in filing the appeal, for the reasons beyond its control. The appeal before CIT(A) be restored by setting aside his order dt 04th Jan 2024.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any of the grounds t the time of hearing of the appeal.”

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the assessment order 22.03.2022 for A.Y.2013-14 belatedly. There was a delay of eight months in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The assessee has given following reasons for the delay which is reproduced by ld.CIT(A) in the order. “As the I was out of India & partnership firm was already dissolved 01.04.2011 Also the address of communication is of my consultant so I was not aware about notice. So kindly condone the delay.”

2.1 However, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that appeal was filed belatedly.

3.

In this case, it is claimed that appellant is a firm and the firm was dissolved w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Ld.AR has filed a paper book, page no.20 & 21 are the copies of Resolution Deed dated 16.05.2011 stating that the firm i.e.M/s.Deepak Trading Co., dissolved on 01st April, 2011.

4.

On perusal of the reason cited by the assessee for the delay, we are of the considered opinion that there was a valid reason for the delay. Therefore, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. Assessee shall be provided opportunity of hearing by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th June, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →