Heritage Realty, Vadodara V. Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

ITA 424/AHD/2022

AI Insights

Heritage Realty filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara, which had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance of the assessee, which was later explained as a result of the negligence of their tax consultant and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal noted the procedural delays and the extraordinary circumstances due to the pandemic, leading to the decision to condone the delay and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134535 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & ANR Vs. Pyrotek India Private Limited, Lokesh M. Vs. PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 263; 143(3); 201

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ᭠यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 424/AHD/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Heritage Realty, 401 Goldcraft Complex, Jetalpur Road, Alkapuru, Baroda. PAN: AAGFH1854B Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), Baroda. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. ITA no.424/AHD/2022 Asstt. Year 2014-15 2 2. At the outset, it was noted that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee of 554 days. The assessee has filed the affidavit explaining and justifying the reason for the delay in filing the appeal with a request to condone the same and adjudicate the issue on merit. It was explained by the assessee that the email Id of the CA, who was handling income tax matters, was provided to the income tax department. The assessee was under the belief that CA would pursue the matter but due to negligence of the CA the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. AR, the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time due to the fault of the CA and therefore, the assessee should not be made to suffer for the mistake committed by the CA. 3. Besides the above, the assessee also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 05/03/2021, when the outbreak of Covid-19 was at its peak. The Hon’ble SC on account of Covid-19 situation, vide order dated 09/05/2022 in the SLP bearing No. 2522/2022 in the case of Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & ANR Vs. Pyrotek India Private Limited has directed to exclude the period from 15-03- 2020 till 31-05-2022 for the purpose of limitation. Thus, the effective delay in filing the appeal is 162 days only and not 554 as alleged. 4. In view of the above fact, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the delay occurred in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond its control and therefore the same deserves to be condoned. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 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 there were two reasons for the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Firstly, due to the outbreak of Covid-19 and secondly, negligent approach of the tax consultant. ITA no.424/AHD/2022 Asstt. Year 2014-15 3 We are conscious of the fact that Hon’ble Courts in a series of the cases have condoned the delay if it is attributable to the tax consultant. In this regard, we draw support and guidance from the order of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Lokesh M. Vs. PCIT reported 124 taxmann.com 201 wherein it was held as under: 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The impugned orders u/s. 263 of the Act were passed on 23-2-2018 & 26-3-2018 and served on the assessee on 28-2-2018 & 29-3- 2018 respectively. The appeals ought to have been filed by the assessee within 60 days from the date on which the impugned orders were served on the assessee. It seems that pursuant to the order u/s. 263, the AO completed the assessments u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 26-12-2018 & 27-12-2018 respectively. Against those orders, appeals ought to be filed before the CIT(Appeals) within 30 days. It is at this juncture that the assessee claims that a new tax consultant was approached, who advised the assessee to file appeals against the orders u/s. 263. These appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 19-2-2019. Going by the sequence of dates and plea of assessee that it was owing to a different advice given by an earlier counsel that the appeals were not filed in time, in our view, has to be accepted. We therefore condone the delay in filing these appeals. 6.1 In view of the above discussion, and considering the outbreak of covid-19, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal as the assessee should not be made to suffer on account of the mistake committed by the tax consultant. Hence, we proceed to hear the matter on merit. 6.2 On merit of the case, we note that the Ld. CIT(A), has passed ex-parte order by confirming the addition made by the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) has done so in the absence of any response from the assessee against the notices issued intimating the date of hearing to the assessee. In this regard, we note that the appeal was filed by the assessee to the Ld. CIT(A), dated 31/01/2017 whereas the first notice intimating the date of hearing was issued dated 24/12/2020 and second notice was issued on 16/02/2021. Admittedly, only two notices were issued and thereafter the ex-parte order was made by the Ld.CIT(A), in the absence of any response from the side of the assessee. Here, it is pertinent to note that the first notice was issued by the Ld.CIT(A), after a gap of almost 3 years after filing of the appeal by the assessee and at that point of time, when notices were issued, the entire country was facing the difficult time on account of outbreak of Covid-19. Thus, in such facts and circumstances, we are of the view ITA no.424/AHD/2022 Asstt. Year 2014-15 4 that the Ld. CIT(A), before dismissing the appeal of the assessee should have given one more and final opportunity to the assessee by issuing the notice to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to re-present its contentions before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 6.3 It is needless to mention that the assessee shall cooperate during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall not seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 19/07/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 19/07/2023 Manish