RISHIKESH SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5482/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was delayed by 236 days. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. The assessee's representative was absent during the ITAT hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the misplacement of the file at the counsel's office during renovation. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay without adjudicating the appeal on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.08.2022Pronounced: 31.08.2022

ORDER

PER C.M. GARG, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2019 of the CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee read as under:- “l. On the fact and circumstances of the case and under the law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred for not allowing the condo nation of delay in filling the appeal.

2. That there is no fault of the assessee, who should not be penalized for the default of the counsel.

3. That there was a reasonable sufficient Cause for file the appeal late. 4. That the principal of natural justice demands that a person should be given opportunity to represent his case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law for rejecting, the Pray for condonation of delay. 5. That the appellant craves the leaves to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3. When the case was called for hearing, neither the assessee nor his representative appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed. It is pertinent to note that the notice issued to the appellant assessee has been received back with a report ‘left without.’ However, on perusal of the appeal record, we are of the considered view that the appeal can be disposed of in absence of the assessee after hearing the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

4. We find, before the CIT(A), the appeal was filed late by 236 days. The request made before the CIT(A) for condonation of delay was rejected by the CIT(A) in limine vide para 6 to 8 of his order. The ld.CIT(A) has reproduced application and submissions of the assessee seeking condonation of delay, wherein on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted that after signing appeal by the assessee, it was received by the AR within time, but, due to renovation of the office of the ld. AR, it was misplaced/lost among the files and could not be traced even after making sincere efforts by the ld. AR. Precisely, the delay was caused due to said bona fide reasons which are beyond the control of the 2

assessee and his counsel. The ld. AR also relied on various judgements including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 1987 (167) SC 471.

5.

The ld. Sr. DR before us, in all fairness, agreed to the contention of the ld. AR that the assessee should not be punished for the delay caused due to misplacement of appeal file at the office of the ld. AR due to renovation. We are satisfied that the cause shown by the assessee explaining the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, respectfully following the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji and Ors. (supra), the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned.

6.

Since the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine treating the same as time barred without adjudicating the grounds of the assessee placed in form No.35, therefore, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) by the earlier part of this order, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating of the grounds of the assessee placed in Form No.35 on merits.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →