RAMBADAL DHUNMUM YADAV,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 680/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2024AY 2010-11Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have properly adjudicated the cause of delay and decided on the condonation of delay before dismissing the appeal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 60 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of this delay without considering the merits. The assessee argued that the delay was for valid reasons and the CIT(A) had implicitly waived the delay by accepting submissions and fixing hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without condoning it, and whether the delay was implicitly waived.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 03-03- 2024 passed by ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:-

1. The Comm. of lncome tax (A) have erred both in Law and in fact in upholding that levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of Rs 14,53,850 since there was a delay in filing Appeal of 60 days the said Appeal is tot maintainable and thereby It is dismissed.

Your Appellant submits that the delay in filing Appeal is for good and valid reasons are there is no malafide or the Appellant did not get any advantage by delay in filing Appeal therefore the CIT(A) ought to have considered Appeal in time and he ought to have condoned the delay of 60 days

2. Your Appellant further submits that at the time of filing Form No. 35 the Registry of Comm. of Income tax (A) did not point out any delay or any defect in the Memo of Appeal and that the CIT(A) also did not give a Show Cause Notice before finally considering the Appeal as Time Barred.

3.

Your Appellant further submits that after accepting the Memo of Appeal without any defects or the objections CIT(A) initiated proceedings of Hearing and he gave several notices meaning there by CIT (A) Waived the delay of the Appeal. Where Appellant gave Written Submissions to notice of 15/12/2022 pointing out the facts of the case, the cause of delay and also Appeal was allowable on merits of the case vide reply dated 26/12/2022.

4 ( a) It is submitted that the office of CIT(A) not having issued any Defect Memo and the CIT(A) had fixed the hearing of Appeal several times and accepted reply of your Appellant on Record it means that the CIT(A) has condoned the delay of filing Appeal of 60 days u/s 249 (3)

(b) Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) having condoned the delay he ought to have considered the Appeal on merits of the case instead dismissing the Appeal.

It is therefore submitted that reliefs claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer be modified accordingly. Your Appellant reserves right to add, alter amend to withdraw any or all Ground of Appeal.”

3. Assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 10-01-2013 for assessment year 2010-11 after making of addition of Rs. 36,092/- on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s. 24 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Rs. 23,43,705/- disallowance on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Rs. 24,22,305/- on account of unaccounted receipts from Shiva Phrama Ltd. and Rs. 2,06,883/- on account of unaccounted receipts received from various companies. The penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated to deal with the concealment of income of Rs. 48,02,102/-. The Assessing Officer subsequently imposed the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 14,83,850/- on concealed income of Rs. 48,02,102/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 65 days.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that CIT(A) did not point out any delay or defect in the memo of appeal filed before the CIT(A) and did not give any show cause notice before finally considering the appeal as time barred and therefore the matter may be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) and the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) be condoned.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A) and has not given any explanation as such for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of CIT(A) for properly adjudicating the cause of delay and decide the condonation of delay as well as the CIT(A) will decide issues contested by the assessee before CIT(A). The assessee is directed to fully co-operate with the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and file relevant documents within the stipulated time given by the CIT(A). If there is any delay on the part of the assessee, the CIT(A) can proceed as per low. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22-11-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR ) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 22/11/2024 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →