Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :
“1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10163499 has erred in passing order u/s 250 dtd. 08.03.2024 as the same is in contravention of ITA 326/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 2 provisions of s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").
That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in treating the appeal filed by the appellant as not- maintainable by invoking the provisions of s. 249(2) of the Act even when the appellant had bonafide and reasonable cause which led to delay in filing of appeal.
3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs., 27,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment made in cash in property at M/s Homeland Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld.AO of not allowing the credit of TDS deducted of Rs. 5,16,620/- 5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment made in cash in property at M/s Homeland Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. without providing any adverse evidence with him and without providing opportunity to cross-examine the persons from whom the relevant material or adverse record, if any, was allegedly found against the appellant. 6. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy C1T(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in initiating proceedings u/s 148 and continued and concluded u/s 147 deserves to be quashed and more-so when the same is based on some material allegedly belonging to the appellant found from the premises of some third party and still the statutory mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 153C was not followed by the Ld. AO. 7. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited 2. our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the ld.CIT(A) has summarily rejected the appeal of the assessee treating it as barred by limitation. It has been stated
ITA 326/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 3 that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly rejected the detailed submission of the assessee on the plea of delay of 131 days in filing the appeal, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It has been further contended that the notice was never served upon the assessee and the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings.
We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. It is found that the ld. CIT(A) considered the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable, as the same was filed beyond the time limit permitted under Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the merits of the appeal filed.
Apropos the delay before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was never served upon the assessee and the assessee was not aware of the re-opening and therefore, he did not file any response to the notice under Section 148 and questionnaires issued. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has requested that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the assessee may be provided sufficient
ITA 326/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 4 opportunity to present his case, on remand, before the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order.
The above facts, as narrated, have not been disputed. The delay of 131 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it is seen, is a bonafide delay, which was incurred due to the non service of notice upon the assessee. Otherwise too, the assessee cannot be stated to have gained anything by filing his appeal late before the ld. CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), as the assessee was visited by sufficient cause for the delay incurred. The ld. CIT(A) has not issued any notice in this regard to the assessee and has refused to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A), further, has also not decided the merits of the case.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
ITA 326/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 5
The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 03.09.2024.