What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the receipt of the assessment order by the TRO constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. The CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.

The assessee received an assessment order in 2013, but the Assessing Officer claimed it was served by affixture in 2010. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as belated and refused to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should have been condoned.

Shri Bharatbhai Natwarlal Patel vs ITO | ITAT Ahmedabad 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD

I.T.A. No.1929/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 1989-90 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM] I.T.A. No.1929/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 1989-90 Bharat Natvarlal Patel .......…………...........Appellant 29, Basant Bahar – 1, Bopal Ghuma Road, Bopal, Ahmedabad – 380 058. [PAN : ACJPP 1375 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), Ahmedabad. ............................Respondent Appearances by: Hardik Vora for the appellant Ila Parmar for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: 24.08.2017 Date of pronouncing the order: 19.09.2017 O R D E R

This appeal, filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31st March 1. 2015, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1989-90, summarily dismissing appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal was belated and that it was not a fit case for condonation of delay. 2. To adjudicate on this appeal only a few material facts need to be taken note of. The impugned assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer on 17.05.2010, though the assessee is stated to have received it, on 08.10.2013, along with letter dated 04.10.2013 from Tax Recovery Officer, Range-10, Ahmedabad. There is no dispute about the fact that the TRO did give the assessee the assessment order, but case of the

I.T.A. No.1929/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 1989-90 Page 2 of 2 CIT(A) is that since assessment order was served on the assessee, through affixture on 01.06.2010 – as per Inspector’s report and panchnama, the appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was belated. The learned CIT(A) was further of the view that it was anyway not a fit case for condonation of delay. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before me. 3. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.

I see merits in the plea of the learned counsel. The fact that the assessment order was given by the TRO is not in dispute, and even if assessment order can be treated as having been served on the assessee through affixture, that fact, byitself, constitutes a reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. In my considered view, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and proceed to deal with the matter on merits. I, therefore, condone the delay and remit the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above term. Pronounced in the open court today on the 19th day of September, 2017. Sd/- Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Dated: Ahmedabad, the 19th day of September, 2017. Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order

Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

SHRI BHARATBHAI NATWARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRAD-10(2), AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments