9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 158 - AT - Income TaxDismissing the appeal in limine on account of non-payment of admitted tax u/s. 249 (4) (a) and delay in filing the appeal u/s. 249(3) by 14 days - HELD THAT - Since the assessee has paid the self-assessment tax as noted we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the file back to him with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for early disposal of the appeal. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on grounds of non-payment of admitted tax and delay in filing the appeal. 2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Assessment u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Appeal filed before the ITAT against the order of CIT(A). Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on grounds of non-payment of admitted tax and delay in filing the appeal: The appeal filed by the assessee was directed against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 under proceedings u/s. 144 rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-payment of admitted tax u/s. 249(4)(a) and delay in filing the appeal u/s. 249(3). The appellant argued that the dismissal was against the principles of equity and natural justice. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to financial difficulties and operational challenges faced by the appellant. The appellant prayed for restoration of the appeal back to the file of CIT(A. Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal: The appellant filed a condonation petition citing a 134-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown. The ITAT held that the delay was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. Citing relevant case laws, the ITAT concluded that the delay deserved to be condoned to uphold the cause of substantial justice. Consequently, the appeal was taken up for adjudication on merits. Issue 3: Assessment u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing and sale of PVC products, filed its e-return of income for AY 2013-14 without paying self-assessment taxes. The AO reopened the case for scrutiny u/s. 147 and completed the assessment u/s. 144 by making additions towards income from other sources and unexplained investments not recorded in the books of account. The appellant appealed against the AO's order before the CIT(A), leading to the subsequent appeal before the ITAT. Issue 4: Appeal filed before the ITAT against the order of CIT(A): The ITAT considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the appellant had paid the self-assessment tax during the proceedings. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and directed the appeal to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with the law. The appellant was instructed to cooperate for the early disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the appellant were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed in the appellant's favor. This detailed analysis covers the dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A), condonation of delay, assessment under section 144, and the subsequent appeal before the ITAT, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.
|
