2018 (1) TMI 655 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in late filing appeal before CIT(A) - Validity of reopening of assessment - assessee s claim that these orders were not received by them - Held that - It is noted that the AO had passed the separate assessment order on 21-01-2014 which were dispatched on 28-01-2014. However, these assessee s claimed that these orders were not received by them. Thus the orders were made and dispatched in time but these assessee s claim that these orders were not received by them. Subsequently, the respective assessee s applied for certified copies of the assessment order. It is further noted that the respective assessee s filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who summarily rejected the appeal of the respective assessee s vide her separate order dated 09-08-2016 being time barred and not allowing the condonation of delay. In view of the facts, circumstances of the case and arguments of the ld.AR of the assessee, it will be in interest of equity and justice to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the respective assessee s. It is also pertinent to mention that the efforts should be made to adjudicate upon the case of the assessee on merits instead of dismissing the same on technical reasons. Appeals of the assessee s are allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Section 147.
2. Adequacy of opportunity of being heard.
3. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.
4. Addition of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land.
5. Addition on account of unexplained cash deposits.
6. Addition on account of bank interest.
7. Charging of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order under Section 147:
The assessee contended that the impugned order under Section 147 dated 21-01-2014 was bad in law and on facts for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons. The appeals argued that the action taken under Section 147 was invalid, and the assessment order should be quashed.

2. Adequacy of Opportunity of Being Heard:
The assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in passing the assessment order without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard and without confronting the material gathered, which constituted a gross breach of law. Consequently, the assessment and the consequential additions should be quashed and deleted.

3. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The appeals were summarily rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on the grounds of late filing (approximately 180 days). The assessee argued that the delay was due to not receiving the assessment order in time and that the appeal was filed promptly after obtaining certified copies. The CIT(A) did not find the reasons for delay to be bona fide and rejected the appeal as ab initio void.

However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had passed and dispatched the assessment orders in time, but the assessee claimed non-receipt. The Tribunal found it in the interest of equity and justice to condone the delay and restore the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

4. Addition of Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Agricultural Land:
The AO made additions on account of Long Term Capital Gain on the sale consideration of agricultural land, which the assessee contended was not a capital asset as per the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the addition was contrary to the provisions of law and facts and should be deleted.

5. Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The AO made additions for unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee argued that these additions were contrary to the provisions of law and facts and should be deleted. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate these additions.

6. Addition on Account of Bank Interest:
The AO made additions for bank interest, which the assessee contended were contrary to the provisions of law and facts. These additions were also not adjudicated by the CIT(A).

7. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The AO charged interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D as consequential in nature. The assessee denied liability for such interest, arguing that it was contrary to the provisions of law and facts and should be deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found it equitable and just to condone the delay in filing the appeals and restored the cases to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2017.

← Previous Next →