Seema Ajay Ranka Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Conclusion: CIT(A) without looking into the merits of the case and detailed submissions filed by assessee also without considering the CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thus for the casual attitude of the Revenue in dismissing the appeal twice was liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the assessee to meet the ends of justice. However in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, it was deemed fit to set aside the matter back to the file of CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to pass order on merits.
Held: Assessee had challenged the order passed by CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre ( NFAC ) dated 17.09.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.This is the second appeal before Tribunal. In the first round, CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to no representation. Tribunal set aside the order, directing CIT(A) to reconsider the case with a hearing. CIT(A) provided hearings on 04-01-2021, 19-12-2022, 28-07-2023, and 29-08-2023, but dismissed the appeal on 17-09-2023, resulting in a 100-day delay in filing the current appeal. CIT(A)’s order did not reference the Tribunal’s direction or allow assessee to explain the delay. Assessee contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) as the appeal was filed in physical form on 08.03.2016, and e-filing was completed by 14.06.2016, within the extended deadline of 15.06.2016 as per Circular No. 20/2016. It was also noted that an appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 was pending after migrating to faceless appeal format, with a petition for an early hearing filed on 21-10-2022 with the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Given these circumstances, assessee requested that the present appeal be set aside to the NFAC for adjudication on merits with a proper hearing opportunity. It was held that CIT(A) without taking note of the Board Circular No. 20/2016 dismissed the appeal as time barred without taking note that e-filing of the appeal done by assessee on 14-06-2016. Thus NFAC was not following CBDT Circular which was highly not appreciable. But assessee was being put to task by filing unnecessary appeals for the default on the part of the Department. On the first round of litigation, CIT(A) granted only one opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the second round without looking into the merits of the case and detailed submissions filed by assessee also without considering the CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thus for the casual attitude of the Revenue in dismissing the appeal twice was liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the assessee to meet the ends of justice. However in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, it was deemed fit to set aside the matter back to the file of CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to pass order on merits for the present Asst. Year 2013-14 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
