MAITREYEE BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T - 51,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1997/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 March 2016AY 2008-092 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) 33 days after the due date. The delay was attributed to the unavailability of the assessee's counsel who was out of Kolkata. The assessee changed counsel after receiving a penalty order and filed the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal had to decide if the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]

Hearing: 09.03.2016Pronounced: 09.03.2016

Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:

1.

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 56/XXXII/11-12/Cir051/Kol dated 23.04.2013. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle- 51, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order dated 27.12.2010.

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable for the reason that the assessee was unable to prove the delay of 33 days.

3.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the AO framed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the relevant AY 2008- 09 vide his order dated 27.12.2010. the appeal was filed before CIT(A) on 29.07.2011 and assessment order was received by assessee on 27.05.2011. The due date for filing of appeal before CIT(A) was 26.06.2011. But the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 29.07.2011 thereby causing delay of 33 days. Now Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the assessee has filed affidavit before CIT(A) stating the reason for delay of 33 days that the assessee’s counsel was not available for almost one month as he was away from Kolkata and hence, appeal could not be submitted in time. But even after that the assessee’s previous counsel could not come back to Kolkata he after receiving penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 24.06.2011 changed the counsel and filed this appeal before CIT(A). Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also pleaded mercy. In view of the reason stated, Ld. Sr. DR has not seriously objected for condonation of delay. In view of the above, we condone the delay before CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated : 9th March, 2016

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 →