Dismissal of appeal in limine by CIT(A) for delay-ITAT followed as no ground was raised by assessee with regard to non condonation of delay
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2919 (2019) (05) ITAT
Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties
Ram Mohan Kabra (257 ITR 773)
K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala AIR 1998 SC 2276
Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat AIR 1981 SC 733, 735
The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) in dismissing the claim of the appellant with respect to charging of interest under section 250(2) and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The assessee had filed the original return of income and subsequently revised the same with a higher income. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act after disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80HHC.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the appeal was allowed. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
However, the Revenue went on a further appeal to the High Court which reversed the order of the Tribunal and restored the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
Consequent to the High Court order, the Assessing Officer passed an order giving effect to the order of the High Court and raised a final demand after charging interest u/s. 220(2) and 234D of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification petition against the said order and the order under section 154 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer revising the final demand.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal against the order under section 154 of the Act before the CIT(A) raising the ground with regard to charging of interest u/s. 220(2) and 234D of the Act. However, there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The assessee explained the delay but the CIT(A) observed that the statements made in the condonation petition did not reflect the correct facts.
Relying on the decisions of High Court and Supreme Court, the CIT(A) observed that it was evident that the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal must bring all the evidences explaining the cause for such delay. According to the CIT(A), the, assessee had not filed any documentary evidence to prove that there was sufficient cause for not filing of appeal in time.
Further, the CIT(A) observed that the petition for condonation of delay did not state the correct facts. Considering these facts, the delay in filing of appeal was not condoned by the CIT(A) and thereby, the appeal was not admitted.
As the appeal was not admitted in view of delay in filing of appeal, the grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated and the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A).
Against the dismissal of the appeal, the assessee went in appeal before Tribunal again.
The Tribunal observed that CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay on the reason that there was no reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly before him. Hence, he had refrained from adjudicating the issue relating to levy of interest u/s. 220(2) and 234D of the Act.
The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had raised the ground with regard to levy of interest u/s 220(2) and 234D of the Act. However, in the grounds of appeal raised the assessee had not raised any ground with regard to non admission of the appeal by the CIT(A) on account of delay in filing the appeal before him.
The Tribunal opined that the ground raised by the assessee before it with regard to levy of interest u/s 220(2) and 234D of the Act was not at all emanating from the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal said that if the assessee had any grievance with regard to the dismissal of the appeal in limine by the CIT(A), the assessee ought to had raised the ground with regard to condonation of delay.
Therefore, the Tribunal in view of that there was no ground with regard to condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), dismissed the appeal in limine and refrained from going into the grounds raised by the assessee with regard to levy of interest u/s. 220(2) and 234D of the Act.
 for delay-ITAT followed as no ground raised for non condonation){kind=link}