9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) dismissed as barred by limitation. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) relating to the assessment year 1967-68, with the only ground being the dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A) on the grounds of being time-barred. The CIT(A) stated that the appeal should have been filed by 6th August 1979, as the assessment order and notice of demand were served on 7th July 1979. The assessee explained the delay citing non-receipt of the demand notice earlier and filed the appeal on 2nd August 1980. The CIT(A) found the explanation unsatisfactory due to various reasons, including the vagueness of the clerk's affidavit and the fact that another representative of the assessee had already mentioned the appeal against the demand in a letter dated 26th May 1980. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the conclusion that the assessee was aware of the demand notice due to various factors, including the ongoing proceedings under section 144B of the IT Act. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the clerk not passing on the notice to the directors, and the subsequent confusion caused by the actions of the tax consultant. The department supported the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the long delay and the content of the letter dated 26th May 1980. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the delay was not adequately explained by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the duplicate demand notice was issued to the assessee on 28th July 1980, and even if the appeal was considered to be filed on 2nd August 1980, it was within the time limit. The Tribunal found that the earlier service of the demand notice on the clerk could not be equated to service on the assessee, especially considering the affidavits provided. The Tribunal concluded that the directors of the assessee-company were not aware of the earlier service of the demand notice, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, directed the admission of the appeal, and instructed for a disposal on merits after providing reasonable opportunities for all parties to be heard. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained, leading to the reversal of the CIT(A)'s decision.
|
