PRAKASHKUMAR AMBALAL PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MEHSANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 950/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 January 2024AY 2014-15Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause and bonafide belief. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order that confirmed a higher business income than returned. The original intimation order under Section 143(1) was processed by CPC, leading to a demand. The assessee claimed non-receipt of the intimation and faced delays in rectifying the issue.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the reasons for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R

Assessee by: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.R. Revenue by: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 04-01-2024 Date of pronouncement : 17-01-2024 आदेश आदेश/ORDER आदेश आदेश This is an appeal filed against the order dated 16-10- 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:-

1. The ld. CIT(Appeal) national faceless appeal centre Delhi has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order u/s. 143(1) of Ld. DDIT, CPC by computing business income of Rs. 36,95,639/- as against returned business income of Rs. 4,24,218/-.

Page No. Prakashkumar Ambalal Patel vs. ITO

3.

The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 09-10-2014 declaring total income at Rs. 4,90,980/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC determining the total income at Rs. 37,62,400/- and a demand of Rs. 11,54,740/- was raised vide intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 02-07-2015. The CPC Bangalore has added a sum of Rs. 29,94,456/- to the total income as declared in the ITR by the assessee as contract income under other revenue as per the intimation order u/s. 143(1) dated 02-07-2015.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the basis of delay in filing the appeal of 2929 days for which the assessee has stated that the reasons that the intimation was not served to the assessee but the assessee came to know about the intimation when the action of demand for recovery came to the knowledge of the assessee. The assessee filed rectification request to the CPC but it was not processed by the CPC and the said rectification jurisdiction was transferred to a different jurisdictional Assessing Officer. On receipt of demand letter dated 02-08-2023, the assessee

Page No. Prakashkumar Ambalal Patel vs. ITO filed rectification application to jurisdictional Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer rejected the said rectification application and suggested to file appeal as per letter dated 07- 08-2023. Thus, the ld. A.R. submitted that the delay is due to the reasonable cause of bonafide belief about mistake which is rectifiable u/s. 154 and without any malafide intention to defraud Revenue.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not taken cognizant measures to follow of the intimation issued by CPC as well as valid verifiable order u/s. 154.

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that though the delay is that of 2929 days but whether the intimation was rightly served to the assessee was not denied by the Revenue. In fact, the assessee has taken a measure of filing rectification application u/s. 154 and the same was also not entertained. The Assessing Officer has also suggested to file appeal and therefore the assessee after exhausting all the remedies has filed the appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate. These aspects have not been taken into account by the CIT(A). In fact, the assessee has filed the detailed affidavit explaining

Page No. Prakashkumar Ambalal Patel vs. ITO the delay before the CIT(A). This was also totally ignored. Therefore, we are condoning the delay in respect of the appeal filed before the CIT(A), the remaining matter to the file of CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee in the appeal filed before the CIT(A). 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.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →