Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR
PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly, both dated 8/2/2019, relating to assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, taking the following common grounds: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) has erred in law and on facts in failing to condone the delay in filing of appeal and arbitrarily dismissing the appeal for A.Y.2014-15 , without considering the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y.2013-14 in the appellant's case, wherein the delay has been condoned and appeal had been allowed on similar facts. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the appeal on merits in the light of the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2013-14 in the appellant's case, wherein the appeal had been allowed on similar facts. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) has erred in law and on facts in failing to observe that fees under section 234E has been wrongly included in the intimation u/s 200A by the A.O. though section
ITA No.252&253/LKW/2019 Page 2 of 4
234E of the I.T. Act, 1961, is mentioned in section 200A by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1st June 2015 .
The brief facts are that the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A) against the orders, both dated 5/5/2016, passed by the ITO(TDS), Bareilly under section 200A of the Act. In both the cases, there was a delay of 367 days each in filing of the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee moved applications for condonation of delay, but the ld. CIT(A) rejected the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to condone the delay in filing of the appeals and arbitrarily dismissing the appeals, without considering the CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2013-14 in the assessee’s own case, wherein, the delay of 366 days, on similar facts, had been condoned and the appeal had been decided in favour of the assessee; and that the ld. CIT(A) should have decided the appeals of the assessee on merit in the light of the decision of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2013-14, wherein, the facts involved are identical to the facts involved in the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, accordingly, prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay in filing of the appeals by applying the rule of judicial consistency and decide the appeals of the assessee on merit. 4. The ld. D.R., placing reliance on the orders of the ld. CIT(A), has submitted that there was an huge delay of 367 days each in filing of the appeals by the assessee. Therefore, the ld.
ITA No.252&253/LKW/2019 Page 3 of 4
CIT(A) was justified to reject the applications for condonation of delay and to dismiss the assessee’s appeals. 5. Heard. We find that there was a delay of 367 days each in filing of the appeals by the assessee, before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had filed the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, in the month of June, 2017, i.e., on 5/6/2017 and 6/6/2017 respectively, and had also filed identically worded applications for condonation of delay, stating therein “The delay caused in filing of an appeal is due to the ignorance of fact where appeal lies and with whom”. The appeal for assessment year 2013-14 had been filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) on a delay of 366 days, which has been condoned by the ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 27/3/2016, observing as under: “I have carefully considered appellant’s petition of condonation of delay in this case. The appellant has stated that due ignorance of fact, that where appeal lies and with whom, has caused delay. Keeping in view of sufficient reason in filing of appeal, I hereby condone the delay.”
The reason for delay in filing of the appeals for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, before the ld. CIT(A), was the same as in the assessment year 2013-14, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and admitted the appeals for hearing on merit. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts that the application for condonation of delay should be adjudicated sympathetically and instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, the authority should dispose of it on merit. In the instant case, since the assessee has furnished a plausible explanation for delay in filing of the appeals, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeals and decided it on merit, but he did not do so. We,
ITA No.252&253/LKW/2019 Page 4 of 4
therefore, do not find ourselves in agreement with the orders of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing both these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merit, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, for statistical purposes, both the appeals are treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/02/2020.
Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:05/02/2020 JJ:0701 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar