2022 (8) TMI 731 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remands case for merit decision, emphasizing importance of considering all facts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. The disallowance of technical charges and bonafide ... Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - Denial of natural justice - not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT:- The assessment order came to be passed and served on the assessee on 21/03/2016 and the Appeal before CIT(A) has been filed on 10/09/2016. The assessee has assigned the reason for condoning the delay was that, ‘his daughter was hospitalized in the month of April to September, 2016 and the circumstances was very serious and beyond control of the assessee, therefore, assessee could not file the appeal in time’. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the reason for delay in filing the Appeal claimed by the Assessee cannot be accepted to be a sufficient cause meeting the tests of Section 249 sub Section 3 of the Act. In our opinion, CIT(A) should have taken liberal view by considering the reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) and set aside the matter to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter on merit in accordance with law. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Issues:1. Disallowance of technical charges by AO and CIT(A)2. Disallowance of bonafide expenditure of technical charges3. Disallowance of loss claimed by the appellant4. Violation of principles of natural justice by CIT(A)5. Delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A)Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of technical charges by AO and CIT(A)The appellant challenged the disallowance of technical charges amounting to Rs. 65,43,578 by the AO and CIT(A), claiming it was wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The appellant argued that the charges were legitimate and necessary for its operations. However, both the AO and CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, leading to an addition of Rs. 78,62,032 in the appellant's hands. The Tribunal found that the technical charges were paid after the incorporation of the appellant, which was a crucial point overlooked by the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance was erroneous, and the appellant's contentions were valid.Issue 2: Disallowance of bonafide expenditure of technical chargesThe appellant contended that the disallowance of the bonafide expenditure of technical charges was unjustified by the AO and CIT(A). Despite the expenditure being claimed after incorporation, the authorities disallowed it. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's incorporation date was crucial in determining the legitimacy of the expenditure. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in not considering this fact and concluded that the disallowance was unwarranted.Issue 3: Disallowance of loss claimed by the appellantThe AO did not allow the loss claimed by the appellant in its income tax return. The appellant raised this issue as a ground of appeal. However, since the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit, the Tribunal did not address this issue specifically in its judgment.Issue 4: Violation of principles of natural justice by CIT(A)The appellant raised concerns about the CIT(A) not providing sufficient opportunity for a hearing, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal acknowledged this issue and found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on delay grounds without considering the merits. The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal were valid and should have been considered. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.Issue 5: Delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A)The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was a significant issue raised by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay, related to a serious family situation, were valid. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal solely based on the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter on merit.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. The Tribunal's decision highlighted errors in the lower authorities' judgments and emphasized the importance of considering all relevant facts and providing a fair opportunity for a hearing.