2024 (12) TMI 559 - AT - Income Tax

Delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) without taking note of the Board Circular No. 20/2016 dismissed the appeal as time barred without taking note that e-filing of the appeal done by the assessee on 14-06-2016. Thus NFAC is not following CBDT Circular which is highly not appreciable. But the assessee is being put to task by filing unnecessary appeals for the default on the part of the Department. On the first round of litigation, CIT(A) granted only one opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the second round without looking into the merits of the case and detailed submissions filed by the assessee also without considering the CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thus for the casual attitude of the Revenue in dismissing the appeal twice is liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the assessee to meet the ends of justice. However in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to pass order on merits for the present Asst. Year 2013-14 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
2. Failure to consider relevant Board Circular No. 20/2016.
3. Lack of opportunity for the assessee to explain the delay.
4. Dismissal of the appeal without proper consideration of merits.
5. Appropriate remedy for the casual attitude of the Revenue.

Delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A):
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the exparte appellate order dated 17.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The case had a history of previous appeals and directions for fresh hearings. The Assessee argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal, providing a detailed timeline of events to support their claim. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a perceived delay of 100 days in filing, without giving the Assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

Failure to consider relevant Board Circular No. 20/2016:
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to take into account Circular No. 20/2016 issued by the CBDT, which extended the time limit for e-filing appeals. The Assessee had filed the appeal on 14-06-2016, within the extended period mentioned in the circular. Despite this, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, indicating a lack of adherence to the CBDT Circular by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

Lack of opportunity for the assessee to explain the delay:
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide the Assessee with an opportunity to address the delay in filing the appeal. Even if there was a delay, the Assessee should have been given a chance to explain the circumstances before the appeal was dismissed. The failure to follow principles of natural justice in this regard was highlighted as a significant oversight by the Ld. CIT(A).

Dismissal of the appeal without proper consideration of merits:
Despite the Assessee submitting detailed submissions, Paper Books, and evidence during various hearings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal criticized the casual attitude of the Revenue in dismissing the appeal twice without proper consideration of the submissions made by the Assessee. The dismissal without a thorough examination of the case was deemed inappropriate.

Appropriate remedy for the casual attitude of the Revenue:
In light of the Revenue's dismissive approach towards the appeal and failure to adhere to the CBDT Circular, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Assessee. Additionally, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC with a directive to pass an order on merits for the Assessment Year 2013-14 within three months. This decision aimed to rectify the lapses in the handling of the appeal and ensure a fair consideration of the Assessee's case.

---

← Previous Next →