Neelam Hospital Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
Admittedly and undisputedly, the assessee had filed the appeal before the NFAC beyond the period of limitation and there was a delay of 252 days in filing the appeal.
However, it is also undisputed that the NFAC did not adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits but dismissed it without admitting on the ground that the appeal was filed late. In our considered opinion, the NFAC should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and establish its bona fide before dismissing the appeal, if the delay was found not to be condonable. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore this appeal to the NFAC with a direction to allow the assessee adequate opportunity to explain the delay and, thereafter, admit the appeal and hear it on merits, if the delay is found to be condonable.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi and pertains assessment year 2018-19.
2. The following grounds have been raised by the assessee :-
1. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in rejecting the request of condonation of delay.
2. The learned CIT (A) has not adjudicated on the Appellant ground of appeal “The CPC has wrongly computed the business income without deduction of Income from House Property which has already been offered for tax under the head Income from House Property resulting in double taxation”.
3. The learned CIT (A) has not adjudicated on the Appellant ground of appeal “The CPC has wrongly added the amount of employees contribution of ESI and PF in the computed income which has been paid after the due date but before filing the return of Income”.
3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the appeal before the NFAC had been filed belatedly by 252 days and the Ld. First Appellate Authority did not consider the assessee’s application for condonation of delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine without considering the merits of the case. It was submitted that no opportunity was given by the NFAC to the assessee to explain its case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, another opportunity should be given to the assessee to explain the cause of delay.
4. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) supported the order of the NFAC and submitted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the NFAC which was delayed by 252 days and therefore, the appeal had rightly been dismissed by the NFAC.
5. Having heard both the parties and after having considered the impugned order, it is seen that, admittedly and undisputedly, the assessee had filed the appeal before the NFAC beyond the period of limitation and there was a delay of 252 days in filing the appeal.
However, it is also undisputed that the NFAC did not adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits but dismissed it without admitting on the ground that the appeal was filed late. In our considered opinion, the NFAC should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and establish its bona fide before dismissing the appeal, if the delay was found not to be condonable. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore this appeal to the NFAC with a direction to allow the assessee adequate opportunity to explain the delay and, thereafter, admit the appeal and hear it on merits, if the delay is found to be condonable.
6. In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21.03.2022
