2021 (1) TMI 1062 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal of appeal of the assessee in limine by CIT-A - there was a delay of more than seven year in filing the appeal - AO has made Best judgment assessment with additions - Assessee submitted that CIT-A overlooked additional evidences filed in the course of appellate proceedings - HELD THAT - We found strength in submissions of the Ld. AR and the Ld CIT(A) has only referred to the facts in respect of receipt of the assessment order by the assessee and no discussion of the additional evidences and affidavit filed by the assessee and passed the order on 16.11.2018. Prima facie, the material filed by the assessee goes to the root of the case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh considering the material, affidavit and details filed in the course of appellate proceedings and the assessee should be provided an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee should cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) due to delay in filing.
2. Addition of various amounts by AO not deleted by CIT(A).
3. Addition of loss on trading in shares not deleted by CIT(A).
4. Alleged totaling error by AO not appreciated by CIT(A).
5. Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234D not deleted by CIT(A).

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) due to delay in filing:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai passed u/s 144 and 250 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of more than seven years in filing the appeal. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider material facts, affidavit, and details filed during the appellate proceedings. The Hon’ble Tribunal found merit in the submissions of the assessee, noting that the CIT(A) only considered the delay in filing the appeal and did not take into account additional evidence and affidavit filed by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of various amounts by AO not deleted by CIT(A:
The AO had made additions totaling to ?3,42,07,177 on various counts, including depreciation allowance, unexplained cash credit, cessation of liability, and unexplained business expenditure. The CIT(A) did not delete these additions despite a remand report accepting the appellant's claim after verification. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not deleting these additions and ordered the disputed issues to be restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

Issue 3: Addition of loss on trading in shares not deleted by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) did not delete the addition of ?20,63,000 made by the AO on account of the loss incurred by the assessee on trading in shares. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and ordered this issue to be reconsidered by the CIT(A).

Issue 4: Alleged totaling error by AO not appreciated by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) did not appreciate the alleged totaling error of ?11,43,743 made by the AO, which the assessee claimed should be deleted. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to review this issue and make a fresh determination.

Issue 5: Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234D not deleted by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) did not delete the interest charged by the AO under sections 234B and 234D. The Tribunal did not provide specific directions on this issue in the judgment summary provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing a fresh adjudication of the disputed issues based on the additional evidence and affidavit filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings.

← Previous Next →