CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 82/PAN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 November 2022AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 771 days. The CIT(A) refused to condone this delay without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI ‘SMC’ BENCH : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.11.2022Pronounced: 25.11.2022

Chinmaya Seva Trust, The DCIT (CPC), 87-B, 4th Cross Bhagya Post Bag No.2, Electronic Nagar, Belgaum – 590 006. vs. City Post Office, Karnataka. Bangalore. Karnataka. PAN AABTC6516A PIN 560 500 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod Y. Vaidya For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikant Date of Hearing : 22.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A), Panaji-1, Panaji’s order dated 18.09.2020, in ITA- CIT(A),PNJ-1/10078/2019-20, in proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has refused to condone the assessee’s 771 days delay in filing of its first appeal before him. Learned DR vehemently contended that the assessee’s condonation petition to this effect had not quoted justifiable reasons which made the CIT(A)’s to reject the same. Mr. Srikant could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the CIT(A)’s does not appear to have granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee to 2 ITA.No.82/PAN/2020 Chinmaya Seva Trust, Belgaum explain the foregoing delay with proper reasoning in the lower appellate proceedings.

4.

I deem it appropriate to quote Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice, at this stage, therefore, to restore the instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication on merits preferably within three opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.11.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →