Gautam Jayant Sopal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dealt with an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati for Assessment Year 2021-22.
At the outset, the Tribunal considered a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before it. The assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. After considering the reasons stated in the application, the Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Since the Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The facts of the case showed that the assessee, an individual, had filed his return of income on 03.08.2021 declaring total income of Rs.51,15,620/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) through an order dated 13.10.2022, pursuant to which a demand of Rs.2,37,350/- was raised.
The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the first appeal was filed with a delay of 258 days. Since the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, the CIT(A) dismissed it without condoning the delay. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the assessee approached the Tribunal.
When the matter was called for hearing before the Tribunal, neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared, and no adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record after hearing the Departmental Representative.
The Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested that the same be upheld.
After examining the record, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a condonation of delay application before the CIT(A) explaining the reasons for the delay of 258 days. An affidavit supporting the condonation request had also been filed before the appellate authority.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was a salaried employee and had sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay in filing the first appeal. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) without examining the merits of the case.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same time, the Tribunal directed the assessee to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A) and to produce supporting documents and evidence in support of the grounds of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal further clarified that in case of non-cooperation by the assessee, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
