AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) , 2015- 2016.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee for condonation of delay.
2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the adjustment/disallowance of Rs.1,30,75,009/-made by CPC under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 143(1)(a) of the Act.
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the expenses claimed by the assessee were genuine business expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and duly supported by books of account and other documentary evidences.
4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without providing adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereby violated the principles of natural justice.
5.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income for the year under consideration dated 31.10.2015 declaring the total income at Rs.6,17,131/-, after claiming various business expenses including ‘other expenses’ amounting to Rs.1,30,75,009/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the CPC rejected the claim of the assessee towards ‘Other expenses’ while computing the total income. The CPC/AO passed the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 1st August, 2016 disallowing the ‘Other expenses’ claimed by the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. A demand of Rs.53,07,052/- was raised against the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who, vide order dated 11.03.2016, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate with cogent documentary evidences that the expenses claimed to the tune of Rs.1.30 crore pertains to the business of the assessee as the same is not appearing as an expense in the P & L Account of the assessee. Pertinently, the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to condone the delay of eight years and ten months in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal against the intimation was due to the fact that the assessee was unaware of the demand raised in the said intimation and that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was directly uploaded on the Income Tax portal and the assessee being non-conversant with the technicalities of the Income Tax portal was unable to access the same in time. The assessee further contended that though she had engaged a Chartered Accountant for tax matters, by an oversight, the same was not communicated or advised to the assessee. The assessee prayed that the delay caused in filing the first appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but, due to genuine circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and, hence, the same may be condoned.
The Ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed to the prayer of the Ld. AR.
On the above facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee being an individual ought to be given one more opportunity to present her case before the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on the merits in the interest of substantial justice over procedural irregularities. We also deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within one month from the receipt of this order to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and duly furnish the acknowledgement to the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to condone the delay and decide the issue on the merits and in accordance with the law on the basis of the submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the assessee, by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.