THE SHAHPUR PRIMARY CO OPERATIVE CONSUMER STORES LIMITED,WAR NO V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD- DHARMSHALA

ITA 248/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves The Shahpur Primary Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd., which filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2015-16. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay in filing, which was later condoned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the dismissal on technical grounds without adjudication on merits would cause irreparable loss to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for fresh adjudication on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126115 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARVEEN SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ,च᭛डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 248 & 430/CHD/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Shahpur Primary Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd., Ward No.6, Shahpur, Disttl – Kangra (HP). Vs The ITO, Ward – Dharamshala. ᭭थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACAT6709J अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate for Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 17.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 HYBRID HEARING ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 21.02.2024 and 12.03.2024 respectively passed for assessment year 2015-16. ITA 430/CHD/ 2024 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessment order under Sections 147 r.w.s. 144 of the ITA Nos.248 & 430/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 2 Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") was passed by the Assessing Officer on 02.03.2023. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 189 days, accompanied by a condonation petition stating genuine and bona fide reasons for the delay, inter alia, that due to deposit of the tax demand and inadvertent lapse, the appeal was not filed within time. However, the CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the case on merits. 3. The ld. AR had submitted that given a chance, the assessee would be able to demonstrate before the CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to get the relief if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. Considering the explanation offered by the assessee and in the interest of substantial justice, we believe that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds would cause irreparable loss to the assessee without ITA Nos.248 & 430/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 3 adjudication of merits.In view of the foregoing, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). However, we make it abundantly clear that the assessee shall comply with the condition of pre-depositing of the tax demand before filing the appeal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ITA No. 248/Chd/2024 6. We further observe that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and a penalty of ₹15,97,203/- was levied for alleged concealment of income based on the addition made in the quantum assessment. The assessee challenged the said penalty before the CIT(A); however, the penalty appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, without adjudicating the merits of the penalty. Since the quantum addition, which forms the basis of the penalty, has been restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we deem ITA Nos.248 & 430/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 4 it appropriate that the penalty appeal should also be restored to the CIT(A) file. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) in the penalty proceedings and direct him to decide the penalty appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the assessee, and keeping in view the outcome of the quantum appeal.. 7. In the light of the above, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "