MONABEN KAUSHIKKUMAR JOSHI,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1529/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Monaben Kaushikkumar Joshi against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which were dated 26.07.2024. These appeals were related to the assessment year 2018-19 and concerned the disallowance of an amount of Rs. 14,71,850 under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and issues related to the penalty under Section 270A of the Act. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on grounds of limitation, despite the assessee's submission of a notarized affidavit for condonation of delay and the payment of 20% of the tax demand, which was interpreted as an intention to contest the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40805 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KETAN GAJJAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. DIVATIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT I.T.A. Nos.1528 & 1529/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Monaben Kaushikkumar Joshi, B-303, 3rd Floor, Silicon Heights, B.No. 257/2 Chiloda, Ahmedabad-382 330 PAN : AHTPJ 2072 P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR Respondent by: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 14.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 14.11.2024 O R D E R These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short), both dated 26.07.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], arising out of orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 and 270A of the Act respectively for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. We shall first take-up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2024. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:- “[1] The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was grievously erred in disallowing u/s. 54 of the IT Act, an amount of Rs. 14,71,850/- by upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. Asst. Unit, which is incorrect and bad in law. ITA Nos. 1528 & 1529/Ahd/2024 Monaben Kaushikbhai Joshi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– [2] The appellant submits that she is having all the details regarding the purchase and sale of the property. But the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the detailed submission along with all supporting evidences, dismissed the appeal stating that this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. [3] Also the appellant further submits that the appellant has submitted a duly notarized Affidavit for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal but the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has not considered the same and dismissed the appeal which is illegal and bad-in-law. [4] The appellant therefore requests your Honour that the addition of Rs. 14,71,850/- made by the Ld. A.O. Assessment Unit, Delhi by upholding the same by the Hon. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal, should be deleted looking to the merits of the case.” 4. In this case it is found that the assessment order has been passed on 28.11.2020 along with service of demand notice to the assessee. Based on the demand notice, the assessee has made payment of 20% of taxes on 16.06.2021, the fact of which is not in dispute. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee owning to delay in filing of the appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was pursuing the filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and was under the impression that his Authorized Representative has duly filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was also submitted that payment of 20% of tax itself proves the intention of the assessee to pursue the matter before the ld. CIT(A), however, the same has not been filed in time owing to the negligence of the Authorized Representative who was supposed to file the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was prayed that the negligence of the Authorized Representative cannot prejudice the right of the assessee as the conduct of the assessee has been proved right by paying 20% of the taxes. I find that the submissions of the assessee are acceptable and no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, the matter ITA Nos. 1528 & 1529/Ahd/2024 Monaben Kaushikbhai Joshi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– is remanded to the ld. CIT(A), with directions to adjudicate the appeal de novo, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA No. 1529/Ahd/2024 5. Since the quantum appeal has already been remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication as referred above, the issue of penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is also set aside and restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14.11.2024 Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 14/11/2024 btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ\rेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b\tथ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड\u001f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "