9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') dated November 24, 2023, by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, National Faceless Appeal Centre (`Ld. CIT(A)') is prejudicial to the Appellant, bad in law and liable to quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the Appellant without appreciating the facts and thereby the merits of the case without affording an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as infructuous. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the net disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the DAO, filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 16.06.2022 disposed of the assessee's objections. Pursuant to the DRP's directions, Final Assessment Order (FAO) was passed, accepting the returned income. Therefore, the TP adjustment and the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, was deleted. Though the TP adjustment and the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was deleted in the FAO, assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT in ITA No.912/Bang/2022 against the FAO raising contentions against the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Act. The argument of the learned AR during the hearing before ITAT in ITA No.912/Bang/2022 was that the computation sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.07.2022. Therefore, since the cause of action stems out of intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, this appeal filed by the assessee as against the final assessment order needs to be rejected. Therefore, grounds 3 & 4 as regards the merits of addition u/s 43B and disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) respectively are rejected. 9. In the final assessment order, the A.O. had included in the computation statement the figures from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act instead of the returned income (which are not subject matter of adjudication in draft assessment order and DRP's directions). In other words, the A.O. has adopted figure of Rs. 114,48,71,340 (computation as per intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act) instead of Rs. 108,32,16,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. In the condonation application, it was submitted that assessee by a bonafide mistake filed appeal as against the addition under section 43B of the Act from the Final Assessment Order since in the computation statement, the income adopted was the figures from the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and not the returned income. The assessee also relied on various case laws in support of its contention that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned for substantial justice and equity. The CIT(A) however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. The ITAT further held that action of AO in taking the figure from intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act where the same was not discussed in the DAO or the FAO is incorrect as same has indirectly upheld the addition of Rs. 6,16,54,359/-. It is in this factual background the assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) with a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal by 1351 days. 10. Admittedly, the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) within a reasonable time from the date of the ITAT Order dated 03.11.2022. The only question now is to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) from the date of intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. iii. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. iv. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 12. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
