Anilkumar Mahansaria HUF, Surat V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(3), Surat

ITA 78/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2830 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.78/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Anilkumar Mahansaria HUF, 504, Green Park Apartment, City Light Road, Near Corner Point Complex, Surat - 395007 Vs. The DCIT, Circle – 1(3), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACHM3646J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms Chaitali Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 24/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal emanates from the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘NFAC’), Delhi, dated 19.06.2023, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 158 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 19.06.2023. The 2 ITA Nos.78/SRT/2024 Anilkumar Mahansaria HUF appeal before this Tribunal was required to be filed within 60 days, i.e. on or before 18.08.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 23.01.2024. Therefore there is a delay of 158 days. The Ld. AR submitted that the tax consultant, who has registered his e-mail Id in the Income-tax portal, was negligent and did not inform the assessee and therefore the delay has occurred. The assessee HUF is dependent on its’ Chartered Accountant/tax consultant for compliance of notices. But, the assessee’s Chartered Accountant/tax consultant has not complied with the same. The tax consultant, who delivered the order to the assessee, was not in a position to assist the assessee with respect to the procedure and formalities of filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay has occurred, which may be condoned by this Tribunal in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that assessee has failed to explain reasonable cause and sufficient reason for the delay; hence, delay should not be condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and note that because of the mistake of the Chartered Accountant/tax consultant, who has not informed the assessee, the delay of 158 days has occurred in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We note that 3 ITA Nos.78/SRT/2024 Anilkumar Mahansaria HUF assessee was not negligent but due to lack of legal advice of Chartered Accountant/tax consultant, the delay has occurred in filing the present appeal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay are convincing and the same would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. AR submits that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond its control. Adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee, therefore, Ld. AR contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the appellate proceedings; hence appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued to him by the Ld. CIT(A) 4 ITA Nos.78/SRT/2024 Anilkumar Mahansaria HUF on 26.12.2020, 23.05.2023 and 12.06.2023. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal by observing that the assessee could not substantiate its contention with proper explanation and credible documentary evidence. The Ld. AR submitted that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee was not responsible and assessee did not get proper opportunity to present its case. He requested for one more opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play. We find that assessee could not plead his case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order by simply reproducing the findings of the Assessing Officer, mainly due to non-compliance by the assessee before him. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee should not suffer due to mistake of his Chartered Accountant and an opportunity of hearing may be given to him for presenting his case properly. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a 5 ITA Nos.78/SRT/2024 Anilkumar Mahansaria HUF speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish explanation and submit the relevant details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A). For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 24/04/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 24/04/2024 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat