Appeals allowed for re-examination after filing delay condoned (A)

The ITAT allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing a re-examination by the CIT(A) on merits after condoning the filing delay. The assessee must provide the necessary intimation under section 200A(1) for fair adjudication, ensuring procedural fairness and substantial justice. The conflicting decisions on the retrospective or prospective nature of the amendment to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015 were discussed, with the ITAT aligning with the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts for a prospective application from 01.06.2015.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17; levy of fee under section 234E of the Act; dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) on the ground of delay.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the mentioned assessment years. As the appeals pertained to the same assessee and involved identical issues, they were consolidated for adjudication. Despite the absence of the assessee during the hearing, the appeals were disposed of ex-parte after considering the departmental representative's submissions and available records.

The primary grievances of the assessee were the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act and the dismissal of appeals by the CIT(A) due to delay. The assessee failed to provide the order/intimation under section 200A of the Act, which led to the fee imposition. The CIT(A) noted that the appeals were defective as the default summary statements were not equivalent to the order under section 200A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, stating that the assessee did not present a reasonable cause for the delay in filing within the prescribed time limit.

During the hearing, the departmental representative supported the CIT(A)'s decisions, emphasizing the belated filing of appeals by the assessee. The CIT(A's dismissal was based on technicalities, as the fee under section 234E had been levied, and the delay was not adequately justified by the assessee. The CIT(A) did not address the merits of the case and rejected the assessee's plea regarding lack of intimation on outstanding dues.

Regarding the issue of the retrospective or prospective nature of the amendment to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015, different High Courts had conflicting decisions. The Kerala High Court, aligning with the Karnataka High Court, held that the amendment was prospective from 01.06.2015, making intimation issued before this date invalid for fee computation under section 234E. A Tribunal decision also supported this interpretation.

To uphold the principles of substantial justice, the ITAT decided to restore the appeals before the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits after condoning the delay in filing. The assessee was directed to provide the intimation under section 200A(1) for the relevant years to facilitate a fair adjudication process, ensuring a proper hearing and consideration of all aspects.

In conclusion, the appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and substantial justice in the adjudication process.

---