9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 830 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) dismissing the appeal holding that the same was barred by limitation u/s 249(2) - Condonation of delay due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic - HELD THAT - We find that there is nationwide Covid 19 Pandemic situation which is beyond the control of the human being and the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time and the ld. CIT(A) should have considered this aspect of the case while deciding the appeal of the assessee. We feel that the assessee has not received justice and appeal of the assessee has been dismissed merely on the ground that the appeal was filed belated, but considering the decision of the apex court 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT , we deem it fit the interest of justice to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide on this merit of the case. Therefore, we set a side the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assesses on merits. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal on merits and without sufficient reason, not to take further adjournments.Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the jurisdiction of the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation under section 249(2) of the Act, and the violation of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to be heard. Jurisdiction of Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c): The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 31/12/2022 for the assessment year 2012-13, which arose from the order of the ACIT, Circle-07, Jaipur dated 20.03.2020 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the penalty order on various grounds, including lack of jurisdiction. The case involved the filing of the return of income, issuance of notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), and subsequent transfer of the case to a different office. Dismissal of Appeal on Grounds of Limitation: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee primarily on the basis of delay in filing the appeal, citing section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) found that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit and that the appellant misrepresented facts regarding the delay. The assessee argued that the delay was due to the Covid-19 lockdown, and relied on the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court extending the limitation period. The assessee contended that there was no delay as the entire period fell within the Covid-19 period as per the Supreme Court's orders. Violation of Natural Justice: The assessee raised concerns about the violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) for not providing an opportunity to be heard before dismissing the appeal. The appellant argued that despite the lockdown situation in the country, the appeal was filed within a reasonable period after the order date. The appellant claimed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal solely based on the delay in filing, without taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. Conclusion: The ITAT Jaipur allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside the dismissal by the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's orders on the extension of limitation periods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach to condone delay in the interest of substantial justice, directing the matter to be reconsidered by the CIT(A) on its merits. The decision aimed to ensure that the assessee receives a fair opportunity to present their case and have the appeal decided on its merits.
|
