SH. LAL CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1108/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 March 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause (non-receipt of notice by the assessee) and deserved to be condoned. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine for being filed beyond the limitation period. The penalty was levied under Section 272A(1)(c) for failure to appear in response to a summons under Section 131.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) was correctly levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(c),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal
For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Hearing: 05.03.2018Pronounced: 05/03/2018

PER BENCH :

All the above appeals have been filed by the Assessee

against the similar order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh dt.

31/03/2017.

Since the issues raised in all the above appeals are common therefore

they are being decided together for the sake of convenience. We shall take ITA

No. 1107/Chd/2017 as a lead case.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following effective grounds in ITA No.

1107/CHD/2017:

2.

That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine by holding that the appeal was filed beyond limitation period and there did not exist reasonable cause for condonation of delay even when the appeal was not filed late from date of actual receipt and alternatively, there existed reasonable cause for delay which deserved to be condoned.

3.

That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer wherein he has erred in levying the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 272A(1)(c) for alleged default of failure to appear in response to summons under section 131 of the Act in respect of ongoing assessment proceedings of M/s Sarvilla Builders & developers Pvt. Ltd.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was framed u/s

143(3) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 272A(l)(c) was levied for non

compliance of notice issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty as there was delay in filing of the

appeal by 1.5 months. The Ld. CIT(A) held that sanctity attached to the

limitation prescribed under the law has to be followed in letter and spirit and

thus the case is dismissed in limine.

5.

Before us the assessee submitted that the notice was served on the

Representative of M/s Sarvilla Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee

Shri. Lal Chand did not received the notice in time. It was pleaded that given an

opportunity relevant submissions would be made before the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

We find that the penalty has been confirmed as the assessee could not

file the appeal in time due to non receipt of the notice. The late filing of the

appeal is due to a reasonable cause which can be condoned, hence we

remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to accord one opportunity and

to consider the submissions of the assessee.

And we believe that the assessee will not belay the confidence reposed upon

and will not abuse the opportunity given while submitting compliance before

the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for 7.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 05/03/2018

AG

Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(c)

All 66 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →