9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 246 - AT - Income TaxConodnation of delay - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay - time gap between signing of appeal memo and actual filing of appeal - Held that - CIT(A) noticed that the date of service of the notice of demand in both the cases was 4th November, 2011 and appeals were filed by the assessee on 19/3/2012 - the appeals were belatedly filed - the request of the assessee for condonation of delay has been rejected only for the reason that assessee could not explain the delay between the signing of the verification of appeal form and the actual date of filing the appeal - The concerned gap is only of 16-17 days - many other documents are required to be filed along with appeal, the time gap of 17 days is not much as the statute itself has given time of 30 days to the assessee to file appeal before CIT(A) - it is a deserving case where delay should have been condoned by CIT(A) - CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay and decide the appeals filed by the assessee on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeals before Ld. CIT(A) - Re-opening of assessment for assessment years 2004-05 and 2009-10 - Disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act - Denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act - Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act Analysis: Condonation of Delay: The appeals were filed by the assessee against two separate orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) for assessment years 2004-05 and 2009-10. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to delay in filing, as the notice of demand was served on 4th November, 2011, and the appeals were filed on 19/3/2012, resulting in a delay of 99 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay application citing a substantial time gap between the signing of the verification form and the actual filing of the appeal. However, the ITAT Mumbai found the delay of 17 days reasonable considering the statutory 30-day period for filing appeals. Consequently, the ITAT directed the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on their merits after providing the assessee with a fair hearing opportunity. Re-opening of Assessment: The assessee challenged the re-opening of assessment for both years, contending that the AO proceeded without furnishing reasons for issuing notice under section 148. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the jurisdictional precondition for a valid notice under section 148 was not met, rendering the re-assessment proceedings void. The ITAT did not express an opinion on the merits of this issue but directed the CIT(A) to decide the grievances of the assessee in accordance with the given directions. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80P: The appeals raised concerns about disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act for interest income on staff loans, staff housing loans, and savings bank accounts. The CIT(A) did not address these issues on their merits. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to decide these matters along with the appeals' other grounds after condoning the delay. Denial of Deduction under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) and Charging of Interest: The CIT(A) was also directed to adjudicate on the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act and the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues were to be resolved by the CIT(A) during the re-hearing process. In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to reconsider the assessee's grievances after condoning the delay and providing a fair opportunity for a hearing. The judgment emphasized the importance of due process and a thorough examination of the issues raised by the assessee.
|
