EKALAVYA GIFT GAILERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1(5), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 865/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 September 2023AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeals, rather than dismissing them outright. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for not affording this opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, challenging penalties for non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the grounds of delay without deciding the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals due to delay without providing an opportunity for condonation. The primary issue is the procedural fairness in dealing with delayed appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 04.09.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 865 /DEL/2023
ITA No. 866 /DEL/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

Heard and perused the record.

2.

The assessee has preferred these appeals for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18, challenging the order of learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirming the penalty levied by the AO amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. decided the issues on merits at all and had dismissed both the appeals on the basis of delay in filing the same.

3.1. As submitted by learned AR, the order reflects that before the learned CIT(A) no separate application for condonation of delay was filed and instead of writing the reasons for delay in column no. 15 of form no. 35, it was mentioned that reasons for delay will be submitted at the time of hearing. Learned CIT(A) also observed that form no. 35 was not accompanied by any affidavit seeking the condonation of delay.

4.

The Bench is of the considered opinion that certainly condonation of delay is not a matter of right and is a matter of discretion, however, when a litigant is being non suited on the basis of delay in seeking redressal, the litigant needs an opportunity to be called to explain the reasons for delay. Admittedly it is not a case where the assessee while filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) had not acknowledged delay or otherwise ignored the delay, as it was mentioned in form no. 35 that the reasons will be explained at the time of hearing. Once this aspect was in the knowledge of the learned CIT(A), then being a quasi judicial Authority, it was supposed to call upon the appellant to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

The order does not disclose if any opportunity of hearing on this aspect was given.

Therefore, the order of learned CIT(A) is not sustainable and accordingly set aside. condonation of limitation and subsequent determination on merits, if needed, are restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to decide the question of delay of limitation in filing appeal, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Order pronounced in open court on 04.09.2023.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →