MAYANK JAYESHKUMAR SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-(5)(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

Mayank Jaeshkumar Shah, Ahmedabad 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of limitation. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appeal was barred by 135 days. Reason for filing of appeal was that the assessee had pursued remedy u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) for rectification of the mistake. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has prima facie very strong case and every likelihood of the success. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee neither caused any prejudice to the revenue nor filing an appeal after the limitation so prescribed was deliberate. In fact, the assessee was under the bonafide impression that the issue can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. Ld. Counsel further submitted that an opportunity be granted to the assessee to explain his case before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Counsel further submitted that gross miscarriage would be caused if the delay is not condoned

Per contra, Ld. D.R. Shri N.K. Goel, Sr. D.R. vehemently opposed the submissions and submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been rightly dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has not demonstrated reasonable cause for filing belated appeal.

I have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the present case is not related to civil dispute. There is nothing or material on record suggesting that the assessee had any intention to evade tax. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘N. Balakrishnan dated 3.9.98 (1998) 7 SCC 123’ and in the case of ‘Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in 62 CTR 23 (SC)’, the delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is hereby 3

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in A.Y. 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes.