Change in Tax Consultant: ITAT Condones 38 days appeal Filing Delay [Read Order]

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a delay of 38 days in filing an appeal, attributing the delay to a change in the assessee's tax consultant.

Sujit Arun Taware (assessee) did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. Based on information received by the Department the assessee had deposited Rs. 35.30 lakh in cash and purchased immovable property valued at Rs. 2.04 crore.

Therefore the Assessing officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148. The assessment was completed with an addition of Rs. 2.39 crore made under Section 68.

Your Tax Rights Are at Stake! Understand the Supreme Court’s role: Click Here

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], with a delay of about four months. The CIT(A), however, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without providing detailed reasons under Section 250(6) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to a dispute with the previous consultant and the subsequent change of counsel.

The counsel argued that the property in question was purchased by a cooperative housing society in which the assessee was merely the chairman and that the addition under Section 68 was made erroneously, without verifying the ownership or the purchase deed.

Tax Authorities Are Watching! Avoid clubbing mistakes: Click Here

On the other hand, the counsel for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities and sought to dismiss the appeal.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Shri Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings.

Read More: Assessment based on Third-Party Evidence cannot be Confirmed If Evidence not Provided to Searched Person: ITAT [Read Order]

The tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) did not provide reasoned findings while dismissing the appeal. The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiji. The tribunal observed that substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations.

Therefore, the tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. The tribunal also directed the assessee to remain vigilant and cooperate in the proceedings. Thereby, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates