R P BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI V. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

ITA 14/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1822 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.14/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) R.P. Buildwell Private Limited Flat No.010, Tower-06, Purvanchal Royal Park Sector-137 Uttar Pradesh-201305 PAN-AAACR 6441D Vs. Income Tax Officer New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Amit Sharma, Adv. Department by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 15/11/2013 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 ITA No.14/Del/2024 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out at the outset by Ld. AR that NFAC has passed the impugned order without duly determining the question of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 4. After appreciating the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had stretched too far the expression ‘reasonable cause’ while examining the plea of the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Assessee had come with a plea that due to attachment of the premises by his banker there was delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. However, the CIT(A) has not doubted the plea of attachment of premises of assessee but has countered it by alleging that attachment of premises would not have affected the filing of appeal before him as assessee merely needed a copy of assessment order. 5. We are not in agreement with CIT(A). As for filing appeal assessee does not merely require the copy of impugned assessment order but when assessment order was u/s 144 of the Act, assessee certainly needed relevant papers and evidence to be filed in first 3 ITA No.14/Del/2024 appeal. If assessee had no access to premises, certainly he was handicapped to file appeal supported with evidence. CIT(A) has thus failed to justify the exercise of discretion to be in accordance with law. The impugned order of the CIT(A), thus, requires to be quashed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Needless to say an opportunity of hearing on merits shall be given, Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/06/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S.PANNU) (ANUBHV SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 04/06/2024 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI