9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 759 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay Delay of 31 days Held that - The assessee has explained the sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal within time - while condoning the delay, the court should take a lenient view - the party has not acted in mala fide but the reasons explained are factually correct, then the court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and should lean in favour of such party - the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Disallowance/ addition made Held that - Assessee has not provided any convincing reason for the assessee s failure to provide the submission along with evidences to substantiate the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A), having due regard to the principle of natural justice, it will be just and proper to set aside the entire appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee placing all the materials to substantiate his claim Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Confirmation of disallowances/additions by the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Request for one more opportunity of being heard. 4. Setting aside the appeal for fresh adjudication. 5. Imposition of cost on the assessee. 6. Direction for re-adjudication by the Ld.CIT(A). Condonation of Delay: The appellant filed an appeal against the Ld.CIT(A)'s order for the Assessment Year 2006-07 with a delay of 31 days. The appellant explained the delay as a misunderstanding of the consultant's advice regarding the time limit for filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to a bona fide reason and not intentional. Considering the explanation provided by the appellant and the principle that the court should take a lenient view while condoning the delay, the Tribunal accepted the reasons as sufficient. It was emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded with the adjudication. Confirmation of Disallowances/Additions: The appellant contested the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision to confirm various disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Ld.CIT(A) had noted that the appellant's Chartered Accountant attended the hearing but the appellant made no representation or provided submissions with evidence. Due to the absence of submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances/additions. The appellant's Authorized Representative (AR) sought another opportunity to be heard before the AO to substantiate the claim. Despite the lack of convincing reasons for the failure to provide submissions, the Tribunal, in line with the principle of natural justice, decided to set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication by the Ld.CIT(A). The appellant was directed to pay a cost of &8377; 1,000 to the Revenue before the re-adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was instructed to re-examine the appeal after the appellant's compliance with the cost payment. Imposition of Cost and Re-Adjudication: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It was ordered that the appellant pay a cost of &8377; 1,000 to the Revenue before the Ld.CIT(A) re-adjudicates the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit all materials to substantiate the claim. The decision to set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication was made to uphold the principle of natural justice and fairness in the proceedings. This judgment involved the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the confirmation of disallowances/additions by the Ld.CIT(A), the request for an additional opportunity to be heard, the setting aside of the appeal for fresh adjudication, the imposition of a cost on the assessee, and the direction for re-adjudication by the Ld.CIT(A. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's reasons for the delay, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. Despite the lack of convincing reasons for the absence of submissions, the Tribunal granted the appellant a fresh opportunity to be heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate the claim. The imposition of a cost on the appellant was deemed necessary before re-adjudication, ensuring compliance and fairness in the process.
|
