The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an income tax appeal on limitation grounds after condoning the delay.
Rambadal Dhunmum Yadav, the appellant-assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) against the Assessment Order passed on January 10,2013.But the appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) due to a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The assessment for the financial year 2010-11 was completed on January 10, 2013, with certain additions made to the income. These included Rs. 36,092 for incorrectly claiming a deduction, Rs. 23,43,705 for unexplained cash credit, Rs. 24,22,305 for unaccounted receipts from a company named Shiva Phrama Ltd., and Rs. 2,06,883 for unaccounted receipts from other companies. As a result, penalty proceedings were started under Section 271(1)(c) for concealing income of Rs. 48,02,102. The Assessing Officer then imposed a penalty of Rs. 14,83,850 for the concealed income of Rs. 48,02,102.
Aggrieved by this the appellant had approached ITAT.
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed their appeal due to a 60-day delay, even though the delay was caused by valid reasons and no defects or objections were pointed out when the appeal was filed, and that the CIT(A) waived the delay by accepting the appeal and conducting hearings, so the appeal should have been considered on its merits rather than dismissed.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The appellant’s representative argued that the CIT(A) did not mention any delay or issue with the appeal when it was filed and did not issue a notice explaining the delay before treating the appeal as too late, so they are requesting that the case be sent back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay and possibly accept the appeal.
C. Dharani Nath,the Department Representative relied completely on order made by CIT(A).
The two member Bench comprising of Dr. BRR Kumar(Vice-President) and Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) reviewed the case and noted that the appellant did not appear before the CIT(A) or explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the case is being sent back to the CIT(A) to properly assess the reason for the delay and decide whether to accept it, along with the issues raised by the appellant. The appellant is instructed to cooperate fully with the process and submit the necessary documents on time. If there are any further delays, the CIT(A) can take appropriate action. The appellant will also be given a fair chance to present their case, following proper procedures.
In Conclusion,the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
