9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 879 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - long illness of assessee - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT , while explaining and laying down the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay, has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical consideration. The Hon ble Court also explained that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late and that the expression every day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The doctrine should be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. Thus there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in the present case. Assessee has not obtained and not furnished the PAN in Form No.35 - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has held that the assessee has not obtained and not furnished the PAN in Form No.35. Regarding this finding of the CIT(A), we find that now the assessee has obtained PAN AANHM 6722 N (a copy of which is placed on record) and therefore this objection of the CIT(A) does not survive anymore. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 22.09.2017 and restore the matter to his file for admission and consideration and disposal on merits of the issues raised therein, after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details / submissions required, which shall be duly considered by the CIT(A) before deciding the issues for consideration. We hold and direct accordingly. Ex-parte orders of CIT-A - HELD THAT - Interest of substantial justice will be well served by setting aside these impugned ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) dated 31.10.2017 and restore the matters in both these appeals also to his file for admission, consideration and disposal on merits of the issues raised therein, after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details / submissions required, which shall be duly considered by the CIT(A) before deciding the issues for consideration.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Validity of ex-parte assessment order under section 144. 3. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The Tribunal addressed the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee, which was 188 days for ITA No.2739/Bang/2018 and 156 days for ITA Nos.2740 and 2741/Bang/2018. The assessee attributed the delay to ill-health caused by paralysis and subsequent hospitalization. The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in MST Katiji and Others (167 ITR 141), emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay and condoned it, allowing the appeals to be admitted and adjudicated. 2. Validity of Ex-Parte Assessment Order under Section 144: The assessee challenged the ex-parte assessment order passed under section 144, arguing that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal without allowing sufficient opportunity to present the case. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a Permanent Account Number (PAN) in Form No.35. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since obtained a PAN, rendering the CIT(A)’s objection moot. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter for fresh examination and adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard. 3. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(b): The assessee contested the penalty of ?10,000 levied under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, but the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) provided only one hearing date, and the assessee had sought an adjournment on that date, which was not considered. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without acknowledging the adjournment request. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity for the assessee to present the case. 4. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee also challenged the penalty of ?2,05,618 levied under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Similar to the penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment request. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to present arguments and evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanding the matters for fresh examination and adjudication on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard and to file necessary details and submissions.
|
