Minor Janki Dineshbhai Amin Oral Specific Deferred Family Trust, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Now Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 490/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0631 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

ITA Nos.488, 489 & 490/Ahd/2023 Assessment Years: 1983-84, 1984-85 & 1988-89 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.488, 489 & 490/Ahd/2023 Assessment Years: 1983-84, 1984-85 & 1988-89 respectively Minor Janki Dineshbhai Amin Oral Specific Deferred Family Trust, Nirma House, Ashram aRaoad, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN – AAETM 0562 D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5(2)(5), Now Ward - 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemanshu Shah, CA Revenue by Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Da te o f He a r in g 27.09.2023 Da te o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 20.10.2023 O R D E R These three appeals are filed by the Assessee against three different orders, all dated 03.04.2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Years 1983-84, 1984-85 & 1988-89. 2. The assessee has raised identical grounds in all the three appeals and hence grounds raised in ITA No.488/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 1983-84 are being reproduced as under: “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in points of law and facts. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not condoning delay in filling appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing appeal holding that the order appealed against is not an appealable order. 4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the ground of rejecting application dated 19.08.2017 to pass order giving effect to Hon'ble ITAT's/CIT(A)'s order. ITA Nos.488, 489 & 490/Ahd/2023 Assessment Years: 1983-84, 1984-85 & 1988-89 Page 2 of 5 5. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the ground of not passing appeal effect of CIT(A)'s order dated 25.02.2003 and 03.02.2003 6. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the ground of not passing appeal effect of ITAT's order dated 07.07.2006. 7. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of not granting interest on Advance Tax paid Rs.2,30,000/-. 8. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of not granting interest on Self-Assessment Tax paid Rs.57,450/-.” 3. Firstly, taking up ITA No.488/Ahd/2023 in A.Y. 1983-84. The assessee filed letter dated 19.08.2017 before the Assessing Officer stating that effect to CIT(A)’s orders dated 03.02.2003, 25.02.2003 and ITAT’s order dated 07.07.2006 are pending and the same be decided along with the issue related to additional compensation and interest u/s.244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are receivable. The said letter was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 06.11.2017 thereby mentioning that certain documents required by the office for verification of facts and giving effect to the said orders were not filed by the assessee despite giving several opportunities. 4. Being aggrieved by the order/letter dated 06.11.2017, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed on the ground that there was delay of 1116 days in filing appeal as well as the order/letter dated 06.11.2017 is not appealable order. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in dismissing appeal on the ground of delay and the order/letter dated 06.11.2017 is not appealable order. In fact, the assessee for several years waited for order giving effect to the orders that of the CIT(A)’s orders dated 03.02.2003, 25.02.2003 and ITAT’s order dated 07.07.2006. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee should have been granted interest on Advance Tax paid that of Rs.2,30,000/- and the grant of interest on Self-Assessment Tax paid that of Rs.57,450/-. The Ld. AR submitted ITA Nos.488, 489 & 490/Ahd/2023 Assessment Years: 1983-84, 1984-85 & 1988-89 Page 3 of 5 that the Assessing Officer should be directed to give effect to the CIT(A)’s orders dated 03.02.2003, 25.02.2003 and ITAT’s order dated 07.07.2006. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as letter/order dated 06.11.2017 is not appealable order. In alternate, the Ld. DR submitted that let the Assessing Officer verify the relief granted by the CIT(A) vide orders dated 03.02.2003, 25.02.2003 and ITAT’s order dated 07.07.2006. 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has given explanation. The delay appears to be genuine, hence delay is condoned. It is noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, but due to the clerical mistake and ignorance of the assessee, the appeal before the CIT(A) was not filed within time, this is reasonable explanation by the assessee for condoning the delay. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the appeal on this ground. It is further pertinent to note that the letter/order dated 06.11.2017 is appealable order as the same emerges from the original Assessment Order and its effect. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the appeal on the said ground. The Tribunal vide order dated 07.07.2006 quashed the revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act. Thus, order passed by the CIT(A) dated 03.02.2003 and 25.02.2003 remains operational. Therefore, the request for granting additional compensation and appeal effect to these orders filed by the assessee dated 19.08.2017 should have been considered by the Assessing Officer, but instead the Assessing Officer rejected the same within 11 days on the ground of non-production of documents mentioned in letter dated 26.10.2017. Thus, the Assessing Officer has not given the opportunity to the assessee for submitting the said documents. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to give appeal effect to CIT(A)’s order dated 25.02.2003 and 03.02.2003 and grant the relief to the assessee according to the law. As regards to non- granting interest on Advance Tax paid Rs.2,30,000/- and non-granting interest on self-assessment tax paid of Rs.57,450/-, the said issues be verified and if the assessee is entitled for the same as per Income Tax Statute, the same should be given to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus, ITA No.488/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 1983-84 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.488, 489 & 490/Ahd/2023 Assessment Years: 1983-84, 1984-85 & 1988-89 Page 4 of 5 8. As regards to ITA No.489/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 1984-85, there is delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has given explanation. The delay appears to be genuine, hence delay is condoned. The issues involved in this appeal are identical to the earlier Assessment Year 1983-84 and hence, the same may also be treated accordingly by the Assessing Officer as per the direction given hereinabove in ITA No.488/Ahd/2023. The appeal being ITA No. 489/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 1984-85 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 9. As regards to ITA No.490/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 1988-89, there is delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has given explanation. The delay appears to be genuine, hence delay is condoned. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has rejected the same on identical ground as in earlier two appeals decided hereinabove and Ground Nos.1 to 3 are decided as per the observations made in above paragraphs of this order. As regards Ground Nos.4 and 5, the Tribunal order dated 11.08.2000, the Tribunal has decided the issue on the basis of Tribunal’s order dated 04.04.2000, whether the subsequent Assessment Order was passed or not cannot be seen on the record. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification and as per the directions given by the Tribunal in order dated 11.08.2000. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus, Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are partly allowed for statistical purpose. As regards to Ground No.6 of granting interest u/s.244A(1A) of the Act from June 2016 till the date of issue of refund, the same is also remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground No.6 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 10. In result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 20 th October, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 20 th October, 2023 PBN/* ITA Nos.488, 489 & 490/Ahd/2023 Assessment Years: 1983-84, 1984-85 & 1988-89 Page 5 of 5 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad