HOTEL RADHIKA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Partnership firm. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 29.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.2,37,630/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) at a total income of Rs.11,11,618/-. While doing so, the AO made the disallowance of interest and remuneration paid to partners of Rs.7,95,058/- and also made addition of Rs.78,930/, being interest on income-tax refund.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A)/NFAC had considered wrong facts of the case which were not relevant to the appellant firm. On mere reading of the contents of Para 3.4 of the impugned order, it would be evident that CIT(A)/NFAC presumed that it is an appeal against the order passed u/s.272A(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the appeal was filed against the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Furthermore, it is seen that there was delay of 370 days in presenting the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC, had not bought on record the actual date of service of the assessment order on the appellant firm. Eventually, the CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remission to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant firm.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.