SHRI ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

ITA 575/ASR/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Adil Khurshid Bhat, the proprietor of M/s Blue Bell Garments, against the order of the CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal originated from an ex-parte assessment order issued by the AO, Ward, Udhampur under section 144 of the Act. The primary contention in the appeal was the rejection of the assessee's appeal by the CIT (A) on the grounds of delay in filing, which the tribunal found to be incorrectly assessed by the CIT (A). The tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates cited by the CIT (A) compared to those in the assessment order and the appeal form, leading to the decision to remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716581 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 575/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Adil Khurshid Bhat, (Prop. M/s Blue Bell Garments) Mattan Chowk, Old Qazi Bagh, Anantnag H.O. Anantnag, 192101, UT, Jammu & Kashmir [PAN: CGBPK 9274M] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Udhampur UT-Jammu and Kashmir (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : None (Adjournment application) Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 16.07.2025 18.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 22.08.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward, Udhampur passed u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 18.12.2019. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 575/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 2 (two) days. We find that this memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 along with the enclosures has been dispatched from Anantnag, Kashmir by post and the said parcel has reached the office of the Tribunal on 23rd October, 2024 which is belated by 2 (two days) days. We condone the delay and accept the appeal to be decided on merits. 3. On the date of hearing, there is no appearance by the assessee or his ld. AR. An application for adjournment has been filed but considering the records and the issues involved, we find that the matter can be disposed of after hearing the ld. DR and after consulting the records. 4. The assessee has taken 9 (nine) grounds in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 and one of the issues raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has refused to admit the appeal for hearing on merits and has not adjudicated on the grounds of appeal as per Form No. 35 and has rejected the appeal refusing to condone the delay in filing the same. From the appellate order, it is seen that the ld. first appellate authority has given incorrect findings in para no. 5 of the appellate order where he has observed as follows: “5. (1) I have gone through the Assessment Order and grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. It is observed that the date of service of notice of demand is 27.06.2024 and the Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 575/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 appellant has filed appeal on 01.08.2024 which is beyond statutory permissible time limit of 30 days.” 5. We find from records that the assessment order has been passed on 18.12.2019 (ex-parte) and the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been filed on 16.02.2021 and as per Form No. 35, it is submitted by the assessee that the notice of demand has been served on the assessee on 12.02.2021 (even though the order of assessment has been issued on 18.12.2029). As such, the appeal could not be filed without the notice of demand u/s 156 which admittedly has been received on 12.02.2021, and the appeal filed within 4 (four days) on 16.12.2021, from the date of receipt of demand notice. 6. However, we observe that the dates as stated by the ld. first appellate authority in para no. 5(1) of the order does not match with the dates in the assessment order and in Form No. 35. We also find that the appeal has not been admitted for decision on merits because the delay has not been condoned by the ld. first appellate authority. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the matter is remanded back. 8. Considering the records, we find that the justice will be served if the matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for looking in to factual aspect of the matter, and to allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard to Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 575/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 explain the delay if any and thereafter to admit the appeal for disposal of the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 on merits of the case. 9. The assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences and submissions to explain the source of cash deposits in bank during the demonetization period and to fully cooperate in appeal proceedings. 10. The assessee should be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 18.08.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "