Balappa Hanamantappa Nandeppanavar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the same was filed belatedly not justified as CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to the grounds for condonation.
Facts- The assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income on 03.12.2009 at Rs. 53,070/-. AO passed an assessment order on 19/05/2022 u/s. 143 (3) read with section 254 of The Income Tax Act 1961 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,075,422/–. The Only addition was Rs 9,89,114/- arising out of the cash deposit of Rs. 15,38,600/- in Corporation bank savings account of the assessee.
Appeal preferred an appeal before CIT(A), however, with a delay of 208 days. Accordingly, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and held that as appellant has not provided a plausible explanation for the delay in form no 35, according to him, the case does not merit consideration.
Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the assessee.
Conclusion- Held that in this case admittedly the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT – A late by 208 days. This is evident from form number 35 filed by the assessee wherein at serial number 14 the assessee himself admitted that appeal is delayed. Further the details on the ground for condonation of delay is to be mentioned at serial number 15, assessee submitted that it would be submitting it at the time of hearing. Based on this, the learned CIT – A considered that as the appeal itself is filed by assessee is not coupled with the request for condonation of delay, same is not admitted and hence dismissed. We find that if in column number 15 of Form No 35, assessee has mentioned that such ground for condonation of delay would be submitted at the time of hearing, the assessee at least deserves a one opportunity of hearing to state that as he has not filed application for condonation of delay, why appeal of the assessee should not be dismissed as not admitted. Even the learned CIT – A has not granted this opportunity to the assessee. In fact, in the interest of the Justice, the learned CIT – A should have issued/granted an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate grounds for condonation of delay. If, the learned CIT – A was not satisfied that there is a sufficient reason for filing appeal late by 208 days, in that case perhaps the order of the learned CIT – A would have been justified. However, we find that process is absent in the appellate order. In Judicial matters, judicial process is also equally important. Therefore we do not find any justification to sustain the order of the learned CIT – A in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as not admitted.
