2023 (9) TMI 1339 - AT - Income Tax

Condition of delay - Delay of 168 days - HELD THAT - As per Form no. 35, the date of service of order is stated to 7.1.2019. Therefore, the assessee ought to have filed appeal within thirty days from 7.1.2019. Hence, there was a delay of 168 days as computed by the learned CIT(A). It is well settled law that the appeal should not be dismissed purely on the ground of limitation. While adjudicating the issue of limitation the appellate authority should also examine whether there is a strong merit in the case of the appellant. Contention of the assessee that the AO has wrongly made addition on account of non-furnishing of Form 28 and making cash payments exceeding rupees twenty thousand - The contention of the assessee is that the AO had wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 40A(3) as in cash payment was exceeding rupees twenty thousand to a single individual. The learned CIT(A) without examining this issue dismissed the appeal purely on the ground of limitation. However, CIT(A) ought to have examined the correctness of contention of the assessee that the impugned additions have been wrongly made. Therefore, hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the issue related to the impugned addition. Assessee s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment pertain to the delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT(A) on the ground of limitation.

Issue 1 - Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of assessment for the assessment year 2016-17, challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned by the learned CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Details:
The appellant contended that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that no deliberate advantage was sought by the belated filing. The appellant had also submitted a rectification application before the Assessing Officer, which remained pending. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal citing non-compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020.

Issue 2 - Judicial scrutiny and decision:
The Tribunal, upon hearing the rival contentions and examining the material on record, observed that the dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of limitation was not justified. Citing the Supreme Court's stance on condoning delays for substantial justice, the Tribunal found that the appellant's rights were prejudiced due to the delay in filing the appeal.

Details:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any undue advantage gained by the appellant through the belated appeal. It was emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, and the appellate authority should assess both the limitation issue and the merits of the case. The Tribunal disagreed with the learned CIT(A)'s dismissal and directed a re-examination of the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes only, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of both the limitation aspect and the substantive merits of the case. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the issue was remanded back to the learned CIT(A) for a detailed consideration of the contested additions.

This summary encapsulates the key aspects of the judgment, focusing on the issues of delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent judicial scrutiny leading to the allowance of the appeal for further review.