NISHANT GOYAL,CHANDIGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1081/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Nishant Goyal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal in limine due to a delay of 98 days in filing. The primary contention was the dismissal without considering the merits of the case and the appellant's reasons for the delay, which included medical certificates. The Tribunal found that the dismissal without a hearing on merits violated the principles of natural justice and remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396701 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL KHURANA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1081/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Nishant Goyal, House No.3135, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh 160020 बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AQMPG0609D अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Rahul Khurana, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.08.2024 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: - 1081-Chd-2024 Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh 2 1. The Id. CIT(A) is wrong in not admitting the appeal and dismissing the same in limine. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding vide paragraph 5.1 & 5.2 of his order that the appellant has not made case for explaining delay and documentary evidences in this regard like medical certificates were not submitted, whereas in, the appellant had duly explained reasons of delay and also submitted medical certificates at the time of filing appeal in Form 35 and during the course of appellant proceedings. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant before dismissing the appeal in limine. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed having been framed in haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee pointed out that in this case the appellate order was passed by the ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal as there was a delay of 98 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On this issue, Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has given his findings as under:- 1081-Chd-2024 Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh 3 “I find that no case has been made out by the Assessee for existence of sufficient cause in the application for condonation of substantial period of delay of 98 days in filing of appeal. I also find that it is also a settled position of law that the delay is un-excusable unless sufficient cause is shown. I further find that proper explanation and reasons for delay have not been given. Therefore, I am of the view that in the absence of existence of reasonable cause and also in the absence of proper explanation and reasons, without being supported by proper evidence, the appeal filed by the assessee late by 98 days, the delay is not condonable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and the same is dismissed in limine” 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the reasons for dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT(A) has not given any findings on merit as he has dismissed the Assessee’s appeal as ‘appeal not admitted’. We find that although the Assessee should have filed the appeal in time, however, at the same time the Assessee should not be denied of natural justice. Even if some order is to be passed against the Assessee, authorities are duty bound to keep in mind that the natural justice is done to the Assessee meaning thereby that the Assessee must be heard before the dismissal of the appeal filed by it. Here, 1081-Chd-2024 Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh 4 in this case, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal because, admittedly, the appeal was filed late by 90 days. 7. After hearing both the parties we are inclined to remand this case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the case is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes. Order pronounced on 30.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "