OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

We find that the assessee is an institution of the State having come into existence by an Act of the Parliament. The copy of condonation application has been reproduced by NFAC at pages 7 to 10 of the impugned order. The ld. AR has pointed out that there was a confusion with the assessee about the representative/consultant taking up the appeal before the AO and, accordingly, the assessment order was not received by the assessee and was left with the consultant only. Reference to certain extracts from ITBA has been made. A contention was also raised that the delay was on account of non-availability of any person on the Board having technical knowledge of filing appeals. It can be observed that the order of the NFAC is silent with regard to specific pleas as raised and on broad principles relying a catena of decisions the condonation application has been dismissed. However, we are of the view that the grounds raised in the application required specific indulgence. The reasons cited as coming up from an assessee having a bureaucratic set up and dependence upon the experts for taking final decisions with regard to tax matters, required more prudent appraoch. Thus, we consider it an appropriate case where delay should have been condoned by the ld. First Appellate Authority/NFAC.

Accordingly, we sustain ground No.5 as raised and allow the condoantion application of the assessee. The issues on merits as well as on law, if any, are restored to the files of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to give a fresh opportunity of 3