Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :
Adjournment application rejected.
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 09.03.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in points of law and facts.
2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not condoning delay in filling appeal. The appeal filed on 4-10-2021 from the receipt of email dt 14-09- 2021 is within prescribed 30 days. The order u/s 154 dt 15-7-2021 was received by email on 14-09-2021. Copy enclosed. Hence, appeal filed was in time. Without prejudice to this, delay may be condoned, if appeal is treated to be filed late.
3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of the appellant in calculating tax at maximum rate instead of appropriate rate and tax raised for Rs.27,069/-.
4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of the appellant in charging interest u/s.234B of I.T. Act for Rs.3,240/-.
5. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of the appellant in charging interest u/s.234C of I.T. Act for Rs.1,366/-.”
4. The appeal of the assessee has been summarily dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) holding that there was a delay of 81 days from the date of passing of rectification order u/s 154 of the Act in filing the appeal before him. Before us, the assessee submitted that the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 04.10.2021 from the receipt of email dated 14.09.2021 which is within the prescribed time. The copy of the email has been perused. On going through the order of the ld. CIT(A), we also find that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits of the case. Since the appeal has been filed by the assessee in time before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits of the case, we deem it justifiable to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, after due issue of notice of hearing to the assessee on a valid email ID.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.11.2024