Nafees Sultana Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A) inspite of declining to condone the delay considered and decided the matter on merits means that CIT(A) has impliedly condoned the delay involved in the appeal.
Facts- Based on information, AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29-03-2021 was issued to the assessee. As the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings failed to file the requisite details, therefore, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the “Act” dated 26.03.2022 made an addition of the aforesaid rent receipt and interest income aggregating to Rs.1,10,56,128/-.
CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing of an appeal, however, upheld the action of AO. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that as the CIT(A) did not stop with the order declining to condone the delay but had considered the matter on both the issues based on which the impugned order was assailed before him, viz., (i) as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act; and (ii) the merits of the addition of Rs. 1.10 crore (approx.) made by the A.O., therefore, the only inference that can be drawn by drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) is that he had impliedly condoned the delay involved in the appeal filed before him. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation, expunge the observation of the CIT(A) to the extent he had declined to condone the delay involved in the appeal filed before him.
