Case Law Details
Prakashkumar Ambalal Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: The recent case of Prakashkumar Ambalal Patel vs ITO before the ITAT Ahmedabad delved into the complexities surrounding an appeal filed against the assessment order for the financial year 2014-15. The appeal focused on the delay of 2929 days in filing and sought the condonation of the delay by the CIT(A).
Detailed Analysis: The appellant, Prakashkumar Ambalal Patel, initially filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,90,980/-. However, the CPC processing the return determined the total income at Rs. 37,62,400/-, triggering a demand of Rs. 11,54,740/-. The CPC added a sum of Rs. 29,94,456/- as contract income under other revenue.
In response, the appellant contested the assessment order by filing an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), while confirming the order under Section 143(1), cited the delay of 2929 days in filing the appeal as a basis for dismissal.
The appellant argued that the delay was due to the intimation not being served, and upon learning about it during the demand for recovery action, they filed a rectification request to the CPC. However, the request was not processed, leading to a transfer of jurisdiction. The appellant, upon receiving a demand letter in August 2023, filed a rectification application to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who suggested filing an appeal.
The ITAT, considering the appellant’s explanation and the fact that the delay was not deliberate, condoned the delay and partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a thorough adjudication of the contested issues.
Conclusion: The ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Prakashkumar Patel’s case underscores the importance of considering genuine reasons for delay in filing appeals. The condonation of the 2929-day delay acknowledges the appellant’s efforts to rectify the situation, ensuring a fair opportunity for proper adjudication of the appeal.
This case serves as a reminder that procedural delays, when accompanied by reasonable causes and a bona fide belief in rectifying mistakes, may find leniency in the judicial system. The principles of natural justice, including a fair hearing, play a pivotal role in such instances.
As the appeal proceeds for further adjudication, it highlights the need for a balanced approach in addressing procedural lapses and ensuring a just and equitable resolution in tax matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 16-10-2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2014-15.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. The ld. CIT(Appeal) national faceless appeal centre Delhi has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order u/s. 143(1) of Ld. DDIT, CPC by computing business income of Rs. 36,95,639/- as against returned business income of Rs. 4,24,218/-.
3. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 09-10-2014 declaring total income at Rs. 4,90,980/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC determining the total income at Rs. 37,62,400/- and a demand of Rs. 11,54,740/- was raised vide intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 02-07-2015. The CPC Bangalore has added a sum of Rs. 29,94,456/- to the total income as declared in the ITR by the assessee as contract income under other revenue as per the intimation order u/s. 143(1) dated 02-07-2015.
4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the basis of delay in filing the appeal of 2929 days for which the assessee has stated that the reasons that the intimation was not served to the assessee but the assessee came to know about the intimation when the action of demand for recovery came to the knowledge of the assessee. The assessee filed rectification request to the CPC but it was not processed by the CPC and the said rectification jurisdiction was transferred to a different jurisdictional Assessing Officer. On receipt of demand letter dated 02-08-2023, the assessee filed rectification application to jurisdictional Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer rejected the said rectification application and suggested to file appeal as per letter dated 07-08-2023. Thus, the ld. A.R. submitted that the delay is due to the reasonable cause of bonafide belief about mistake which is rectifiable u/s. 154 and without any malafide intention to defraud Revenue.
6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not taken cognizant measures to follow of the intimation issued by CPC as well as valid verifiable order u/s. 154.
7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that though the delay is that of 2929 days but whether the intimation was rightly served to the assessee was not denied by the Revenue. In fact, the assessee has taken a measure of filing rectification application u/s. 154 and the same was also not entertained. The Assessing Officer has also suggested to file appeal and therefore the assessee after exhausting all the remedies has filed the appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate. These aspects have not been taken into account by the CIT(A). In fact, the assessee has filed the detailed affidavit explaining the delay before the CIT(A). This was also totally ignored. Therefore, we are condoning the delay in respect of the appeal filed before the CIT(A), the remaining matter to the file of CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee in the appeal filed before the CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17-01-2024
Author Bio
