9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption "issue letter" which was misunderstood by the assessee. Be that as it may, as held in the case of Vareli Textiles Ltd. [2006 (2) TMI 102 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that meritorious cases should not be thrown out on ground of limitation. CIT(E) was not correct in summarily rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the case. It is found that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B. Delay in filing the Form No. 10B was duly condoned by the Ld. CIT(E). AO was not correct in rejecting the rectification application of the assessee for the reason that delay in filing the Form No. 10B was not condoned. In the interest of justice, we, therefore, set-aside the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity which was decided vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. The assessee is now in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: "(1) The NFAC has dismissed the appeal without considering the prayer of the assessee for delay in filing appeal and without providing opportunity to submit clarification by assessee with supporting proof. (2) The NFAC did not consider the appeal in merit. (3) The order issued u/s 154 of the Act for rejecting application of section 11 and 12 of the Act on ground of Form 10B filed beyond due date is not correct as CBDT has already condone the delay as per Para 4(i) of Circular 10/2019 dt. 22.05.2019. So it is requested to issue the order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er" which was misunderstood as a normal communication, but which, in fact, was the order rejecting the application under Section 154 of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. explained that since the order under Section 154 passed by the Assessing Officer was not communicated as a formal order but only in the form of "issue letter", the communication was not correctly understood by the assessee, which had led to delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. further explained that the assessee had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B with the ld. CIT(Exemption), who vide order dated 24.04.2020 had condoned the delay. The Ld. A.R. submitted that since the delay in filing Form No. 10B was already condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect in summarily rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the case. It is found that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B. The Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 24.04.2020 had condoned the delay by observing as under: "2. Your case for A.Y. 2016-17 is already covered under para 4(i) of circular no 10/2019 dated 22.05.2019. Therefore no separate Condonation is required by this office. Accordingly your application is treated as filed." 8. Thus, the delay in filing the Form No. 10B was duly condoned by the Ld. CIT(E). Under the circumstances the Assessing Officer was not correct in rejecting the rectification application of the assessee for the reason that de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
