Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The appeal was filed with a delay of 171 days. The reason for the delay was that the person responsible for income tax matters resigned and left without handing over charge.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 171 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned for substantial justice.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 10/04/2024for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('Act' for short) on 30/03/2022 by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 5,28,76,820/-as against the loss computed as per the order u/s 143(3) of the Act of Rs. 5,28,76,820/-.Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/03/2022, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, there was a delay of 171 days in filing the first Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10/04/2024 , dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the first Appeal though there was sufficient cause the condone the delay, therefore, sought for allowing the present Appeal of the Assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/03/2022, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 171 days. As per the Assessee, the cause of the delay was that ‘the person responsible for income tax matters resigned and left the Assessee without handing over the charge’. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condone the delay and dismissed the Appeal.
It can be seen from the reasons contended by the Assessee that ‘the person responsible for income tax matters resigned and left the Assessee without handing over the charge’. Though it is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delayis bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst.
1. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 171 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.