ANABAGILU SHAMSUDDIN HARRIS,KASARAGOD V. I T O, WARD-1, KASARAGOD

ITA 658/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anabagilu Shamsuddin Harris, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)), which had dismissed his appeal as barred by time. The original dispute was regarding an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, where an addition of Rs.106,59,139 was made but later deleted by the PCIT under section 264. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 53-day delay in filing, which the appellant attributed to technical issues in downloading the penalty order from the Income Tax Department's website. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471646 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Revision of order
• Section: 147; 264

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member ITA No. 658/Coch/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Anabagilu Shamsuddin Harris Tri Lead Associates Tri Lead Trade Centre Anabegilu, Kasaragod 671121 [PAN: ATRPS8000J] vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1, Kasaragod (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Suresh Kumar, CA Respondent by: Ms. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 18.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we note that there was a delay 53 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), which was not condoned by him. The reason furnished by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order was that the same was not getting downloaded from the website of the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, the order was obtained after making request to the Assessing Officer (AO). Accordingly, the assessee could not be held non-vigilant in filing the appeal within the time. According to the assessee there were compelling circumstances for 2 ITA No. 658/Coch/2024 Anabagilu Shamsuddin Harris delayed filing of the appeal and therefore the same should be condoned. However, the learned CIT(A) was not impressed with the submission of the assessee and accordingly dismissed the appeal as barred by time. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned A.R. before us reiterated the submission as made during the appellate proceedings. 5. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessment was framed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs.106,59,139/- which was subsequently deleted in the order passed by the learned PCIT u/s 264 of the Act. In other words, the returned income of the assessee was accepted by the Revenue. Thus, we are of the view that there was no defect in the income disclosed by the assessee in its return of income. 7. Furthermore, considering the length of delay of 53 days, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay and set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3 ITA No. 658/Coch/2024 Anabagilu Shamsuddin Harris Order pronounced on 21st October, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Soundararajan K.) JudicialMember (Waseem Ahmed) AccountantMember Cochin, Dated: 21st October, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "