REDTECH SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,CUTTACK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ambika Prasad Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld JCIT(A) It was submitted by ld AR that the ld JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai has 11, Mumbai has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. was the submission that the appeal before the ld CIT(A) was to be filed on was the submission that the appeal before the ld CIT(A) was to be filed on was the submission that the appeal before the ld CIT(A) was to be filed on P a g e 1 | 4 or before 4.1.2018, but as the tax consultant was occupied with urgent professional assignment and in process the assessment order was misplaced in the office of the tax consultant, the appeal was not filed within the due date. When the assessment order was traced in the office, the appeal was filed and consequently, there was delay of 107 days. It was the submission that there was sufficient cause in filing the appeal delay and the assessee would not gain anything by not filing the appeal. In support of this, an affidavit was filed by Sri Sanjib Ranjan Panda, Law Assistant of the Tax Consultant stating that had misplaced the assessment order. It was the prayer that the delay in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) be condoned and since the assessment was completed u/s.144/147 of the Act, the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Ld AR also undertakes in the bar that the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings.

In reply, ld Sr DR opposed the prayer of ld AR of the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order of ld JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai clearly shows that ld JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay. The assessee has stated that due to misplacement of assessment order in the office of Tax consultant, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time period. The 107 days delay was not intentional or deliberate, as the delay was attributed due to misplacement of assessment order by the tax P a g e 2 | 4 consultant. In support of this contention, an affidavit was filed by the concerned person who had misplaced the assessment order. The assessee’s representative emphasized that the assessee would be more vigilant in future compliance with notices from lower authorities and had a strong case on merit that deserved another opportunity for proper adjudication. In our opinion, when there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay has to be condoned irrespective of the duration/period. In view of the above, we are condoning the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) belatedly and the appeal is admitted for adjudication by exercising the power u/s 253(5) of the Act and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.