Sharwan Lal Dudhawal, Sikar V. ITO Ward Neemkathana bor AO CPC, Neemkathana

ITA 549/JPR/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1175 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR MEENA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Right to appeal; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ जयपुरमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES “A” :: JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.549/JPR/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sharwan Lal Dudhawal, Dudhwalon Ki Dhani VPO Ajeetgarh, Sikar/Neemkathana, Meen- Ka-Thana, Rajasthan-332701. PAN: AJYPD8361Q V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Neemkathana bor AO CPC, Neemkathana. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta – Advocate (AR) Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 02/07/2024 Date of pronouncement 04/07/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the orders of ld.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax/JCIT(Appeals)-5, ITA No.549/JPR/2024 Shrawan Lal Dudhwal [A] 2 Mumbai under section 250 of the Act dated 05.03.2024. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The impugned assessment order u/s 143(1) dated 27.03.2021 as well as the action taken by the Id. AO are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation, without proper approval or satisfaction and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not admitting the appeal and dismissing the same on condonation of delay ignoring the sufficient material and evidences available on record, being the strong case on merit. Hence the order so passed by the Id. CIT(A) in gross breach of law and against the principal of natural justice and liable to be quashed and entire additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be deleted. 3. Rs.57,35,490/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.57,35,490/- on account of income from other source as against the nil business income and also erred in taking the entire receipts as income by not allowing the expenses. Hence the addition/disallowance so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice to GOA 3, the Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not assessing the income u/s 44AE or the income may be assessed u/s 44AE on the receipts shown in 26AS. Hence the addition/disallowance so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234 A B.C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, ITA No.549/JPR/2024 Shrawan Lal Dudhwal [A] 3 being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. 6. The appellate prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” Submission of Authorised Representative for Assessee: 2. The ld.AR for the assessee filed a written submission along with paper book containing 167 pages. Page no.161 to 167 of the said paper book is the copy of application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.Departmental Representative for Revenue : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the ld.Addl.CIT(A) vide order dated 05.03.2024 for A.Y.2017-18 passed u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay. ITA No.549/JPR/2024 Shrawan Lal Dudhwal [A] 4 4.1 The ld.Addl.CIT(A) in paragraph-1 of the order has stated that appeal was instituted on 07.03.2022 against the order u/sec.143(1) dated 27.03.2021. In the concluding para, the ld.Addl.CIT(A) held that the appeal was delayed by 305 days. The relevant paragraph is reproduced here as under : “In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal for 305 days. Unless and until it demonstrated that there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within that prescribed period of 30 days, delay thereafter cannot be condoned. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s 249(3). Thus, this clearly is a case of laches and is directly the result of deliberate inaction on part of the appellant. In view of above, the delay of days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellants failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s249(2) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted.” ITA No.549/JPR/2024 Shrawan Lal Dudhwal [A] 5 4.2 In this case, on perusal of the record, it is observed that order u/sec.143(1) for A.Y.2017-18 is dated 27.03.2019. The appellant submitted that said order was received by appellant in April, 2019. As per the Affidavit of the appellant, appeal should have been filed against the order u/sec.143(1) before the ld.CIT(A) on or before 15.05.2019. However, the appeal has been filed on 07.03.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme court vide order dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 had extended the limitation date for all the appeal from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Therefore, in this case, the actual delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is from 15.05.2019 to 14.03.2020, thus, the delay is of 304 days. We have gone through the Affidavit of the assessee which was filed before the ld.CIT(A) along with condonation application. We find that there was sufficient cause for the said delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we set-aside the order of ld.Addl.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication by condoning the delay. The ld.CIT(A) shall decide the case on merits and shall provide ITA No.549/JPR/2024 Shrawan Lal Dudhwal [A] 6 opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4 th July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tk;iqj@Jaipur / fnukad@Dated:- 04/07/2024 / SGR* vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sharwan Lal Dudhawal, Meena-Ka-Thana 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-Neemkathana. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.549/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, / / TRUE COPY // lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar