9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1090 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 51 days - HELD THAT - Assessee has explained cause of delay, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. Claim of depreciation as an application of income towards the income earned by the assessee society - CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order - HELD THAT - As noticed that CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee before CIT(A). On perusal of the order, we also noticed that initially the appeal was fixed for hearing and was adjourned from time to time on various occasions, but none attended on behalf of the assessee. As noticed that throughout the assessee remained non-cooperative despite availing several opportunities, therefore CIT(A) passed the impugned order, thereby taking into consideration, the statement of facts and the material placed on record. It was the bounded duty of the parties i.e. assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, this was the assessee s appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence - aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits - Appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes only.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Denial of claim of depreciation as an application of income. 3. Failure of the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) and its impact on the appeal. Condonation of Delay: The appeal was filed with a delay of 51 days, but no separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional and bonafide. The principles of law dictate a liberal approach in interpreting 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the power to condone delay is to ensure substantial justice. The explanation for delay must be bonafide and not a cover for ulterior motives. In this case, the delay was condoned as the assessee provided a valid explanation. Denial of Depreciation Claim: The sole ground in the quantum appeal was the denial of depreciation claim as an application of income. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) or offer any explanation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The assessee tried to support the claim by citing relevant precedents, but the Department refuted the claim with other decisions. The ITAT did not delve into the merits of the claim due to the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing. Failure to Appear Before CIT(A): Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), resulting in an ex-parte order. The ITAT emphasized the importance of both parties appearing before the CIT(A) and acting with due diligence. The principles of natural justice require a fair hearing for both parties. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to cooperate without unnecessary adjournments. In conclusion, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the denial of the depreciation claim was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision due to the assessee's failure to appear and cooperate. The ITAT stressed the importance of both parties participating in the proceedings and receiving a fair opportunity to present their case.
|
