GEETA CHATRATH, CHANDIGARH V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 154/CHANDI/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0149 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VED PARKASH KALIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 143(1); 250; 251; 153

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 154/CHD/2024 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Geeta Chatrath, # 174, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. बनाम VS The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AHFPC3227P अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri T.N. Singla, CA राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024 उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2023-24 against the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) Jaipur. The following grounds have been taken : 1 . That the order of Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) is bad and against the facts and Law. 2 . That the Learned C.I.T (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the detailed submission made by the assessee on the plea of delay in filing the appeal by few days, without issuing any show cause notice. ITA 154/CHD/2024 A.Y.2023-24 2 3. That the Learned C.I.T (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of TDS credit of Rs. 11,908/- deducted on the behalf of assessee's deceased mother-in law of which the assessee is a legal heir and relevant income of deceased is included in the income of the appellant. 4. That the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly ignored requests dated 22.11.2023 and 02.12.2023 for rectification pending with the assessing officer.” 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the ld.CIT(A) has summarily rejected the appeal of the assessee treating it as barred by limitation. It has been stated that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly rejected the detailed submission of the assessee on the plea of delay in filing the appeal, without issuing any Show Cause Notice. 3. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. It is found that the ld. CIT(A) considered the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable, as the same was filed beyond the time limit permitted under Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee under Section 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference : “ Decision on Condonation of Delay:- The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. It is noticed that there is a delay in filing of appeal. The appeal is to be filed within 30 days of the date of ITA 154/CHD/2024 A.Y.2023-24 3 the service of the order. During the appellate proceedings, it is found from the Form No. 35 that the appellant filed the present appeal on 24.11.2023 whereas the date of intimation order u/s 143(1) was on 12.10.2023 and as per Form No. 35, the date of service of order was 12.10.2023. As per the dates given in Form 35, it appears that the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed due date. Moreover, there has been no affidavit/application of condonation of delay filed by appellant regarding the delay in filing of appeal. Hence, considering no hardship or sufficient cause for delay in filing of this appeal, the delay is not condoned. The above view has also been taken by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai [2023] 153 taxmann.com 354 (Madras) in a recent decision. Thus, the appeal filed by appellant is not maintainable as the same is filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s 249 of the IT Act for filing of appeal and there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, which can be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed u/s. 250 r.w.s.251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed. 4. In the end, the present appeal is treated as dismissed.” 4. Apropos the delay before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the CPC had sent intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein, credit of TDS of Rs.11,908/- was not allowed; that the assessee sent a request for rectification to the jurisdictional AO on 22.11.2023 against the intimation and again sent a request on 02.12.2023 to the jurisdictional AO; that the jurisdictional AO was contacted for rectification, but he did not pass any rectification order in response to the assessee's said request letters dated 22.11.2023 and 02.12.2023; that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 24.11.2023 with a request to either allow the credit of TDS of Rs.11,908/-, or to set aside the intimation dated ITA 154/CHD/2024 A.Y.2023-24 4 12.10.2023; and that the ld. CIT(A), instead of allowing any relief, rejected the appeal on the delay in filing the appeal, without issuing any Show Cause to the assessee in this regard, and without going into the merits of the case as stated in the Form No. 35 filed by the assessee. It has been submitted that the delay was, thus, due to submission of rectification request of the assessee after receipt of the intimation dated 12.10.2023, ignoring the bonafide delay of 14 days. 5. The ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 6. The above facts, as narrated, have not been disputed. The delay of 14 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it is seen, is a bonafide delay, which was incurred due to the filing of the rectification application by the assessee before the AO. No order thereon has been passed by the AO, as stated. Otherwise too, the assessee cannot be stated to have gained anything by filing her appeal late before the ld. CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), as the assessee was vested by sufficient cause for the delay incurred. The ld. CIT(A) has not issued any notice in this regard to the assessee and has refused to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A), ITA 154/CHD/2024 A.Y.2023-24 5 further, has also not decided the merits of the case. 7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). 8. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13.08.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2. . 灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु猴/ CIT 4. िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar