MOHAMMED ASIM NAVEED, Hyderabad V. ITO Ward-5(3)(3), Karnataka

ITA 670/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6261 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHAMMED AFZAL
• Section: 250; 64

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT R ITA No.670/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Mohammed Asim Naveed, Flat No.102, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad – 500 028. PAN : ACXPN 7513 J Vs.ITO, Ward – 5(3)(3), Karnataka. APPELLANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Shri.Mohammed Afzal, CA Revenue by :Shri.Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing:24.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement:27.06.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 12.02.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. 2. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 542 days in filing the appeal before him. The learned AR submitted that assessee had given only an explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) in column 15 to Form 35 which has been extracted in paragraph 2 of the impugned Order of the CIT(A). It is submitted that after excluding the covid period from calculation of limitation as ITA No.670/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3 per the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in MA No.21 of 2022 in suo moto W. P (C) No.3 of 2020 (Order dated 10.01.2022), the delay is only 64 days and not 542 days. It is submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter may be restored to the CIT(A) for proper submission of the condonation application and an affidavit of the assessee. 3. The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On merits, the issue in question is with regard to Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). Prima facie the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that filing of Form 67 is only a procedural aspect and the same is not mandatory but directory. It is the claim of the assessee that there is only 64 days delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), after excluding the covid period. In the interest of justice and equity, since there is no proper delay condonation application filed before the CIT(A), I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to CIT(A) [assessee has given merely an explanation for delay in column 15 to Form 35 filed before the CIT(A)]. Accordingly, the appeal before the Tribunal is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file a proper delay condonation application explaining why there is delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) and a supporting affidavit if so advised. The CIT(A) shall consider fresh delay condonation application and affidavit, if any filed. The CIT(A) shall decide the delay condonation application afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. ITA No.670/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 27.06.2024. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.DRP4.CIT 5.CIT(A)6.DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.