Sohil Uday Parmar, Vapi V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7, Vapi, Vapi

ITA 821/SRT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8882 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 147; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 821/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) (Hybrid hearing) Sohil Uday Parmar, C/7, Haria Park Row House, Vapi Road, Chanod, Vapi-396195 (Gujarat) PAN No. BBBPP 8537 Q Vs. I.T.O., Ward-7, Vapi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Suresh K Kabra, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Appeal instituted on 29/11/2023 Date of hearing 31/01/2024 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2024 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 29/09/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not condoning the small delay of 19 days in filing the appeal in Form NO. 35. 2.0 Prayer: 2.1 The delay in filing of Form No.35 may kindly be condoned and the matter may be kindly be restored back to the ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer. 2.2 Personal heard may be granted. ITA No. 821/Srt/2023 Sohil Uday Parmar Vs ITO 2 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deed fit may be granted. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was passed on 30/03/2023 in making addition of Rs. 1,03,93,166/- on account of unexplained money and added under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 17/05/2023. The assessee while filing appeal, filed application for condonation of delay of 19 days. The delay was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) resultantly; the appeal was dismissed as not admitted. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed application for condonation of delay on the ground that on receipt of assessment order, he approached Chartered Accountant namely Shri Gopalkrishna Aiyer in first week of April. Around 25 th April i.e. after 20 days, office of said Chartered Accountant informed that they would not handle the appeal. The assessee immediately collected the paper and approached his regular tax consultant, Shri Sumit Jha and appeal fees was filed on 01/05/2023. However, the appeal could be filed only on 17/05/2023. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was pursuing his case diligently and there was no intentional or deliberate delay in ITA No. 821/Srt/2023 Sohil Uday Parmar Vs ITO 3 filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee filed affidavit of assessee on record narrating all the facts. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was not going to be benefitted in filing appeal belatedly. The assessee has approached the tax consultants in time for filing appeal, the matter was not taken up by him for the reasons best known to him. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay may be condoned and the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that even there is delay of one day in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 29/09/2023 and the present appeal is filed on 29/11/2023, thus there is a delay of one day in filing appeal. However, on merit, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that he supports the order of ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has not explained the delay in proper manner before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 29.09.2023 which bears the time of his digital signature of 19:20:51 (evening) and the order was received on 30/09/2023 and the appeal is filed well within 60 days on receipt of order. ITA No. 821/Srt/2023 Sohil Uday Parmar Vs ITO 4 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities and our record carefully. We find that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 20/09/2023 which bears his digital signature narrating the time of digital signature as 19:20:51 IST. The ld. AR of the assessee while making his submission, explained that the order was communicated to him only on 30/09/2023 and the appeal was filed on 29/11/2023 which is within time. On verification of facts, we find that the present appeal is filed within 60 days of date of communication, thus there is no delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 6. So far as grounds of condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A) is concerned, we find that the assessee in his affidavit has reasonably explained the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We further find that the assessee was not going to be benefitted by filing appeal belatedly or intentionally as has been suffered due to small delay of 19 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that when technical consideration are pitted against the case of substantial justice, cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 19 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned and the order of ld. CIT(A) on the delay is set aside. As the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit, therefore, the ITA No. 821/Srt/2023 Sohil Uday Parmar Vs ITO 5 grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all the issues raised in the appeal on merit. Needless to direct that before passing the order on merit, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and in making proper compliance and not to make any default in responding the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 31 st January, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 31/01/2024 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. PCIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat