Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 350 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee unconvincing. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay due to communication gaps and the time taken for counsel appointment. The delay was condoned, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justified and whether it should be condoned.
Sections Cited
206C(6A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI
Asstt. Year : 2010-11 The District Magistrate, Badaun, VS. ITO (TDS), Collectorate Compound, Badaun, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh – 243601 Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (PAN: LKND0606E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Moradabad.
In this case, order dated 31.03.2017 was passed u/s. 206C(6A) of the Act by the ITO-TDS, Moradabad for the assessment year 2010-11 by imposing the total tax liability of Rs. 8,13,688/- and assessed the income on the same amount. In Appeal, there is a delay of 350 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission of the assessee:- “There was a delay of 350 days and it was due to the fact that order was served on D.M. Office and which was not conveyed to mining Officer Mr. Narender Kumar. It came to his knowledge in September, 2017 and due to the fact that the time was consumed in empanelment and appointment of counsel. That further the delay was due to the procedure of online registration for filing appeal.”
Ld. CIT(A) further noted the following submissions of the assessee:- ‘the judgement was served to the office of District Magistrate, Budaun and which was not conveyed to the Mining Officer Mr. Narendra Kumar. The Mining Officer had joined the post in January, 2021 and due to disc slip he went on a medical leave and re-joined the office in March, 2017. The Mining Officer had also had a meeting with the Ld. ITO(TDS) and thereafter it came to his knowledge that various cases related to TCS of Miniing Office, Budaun were pending before the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, Mining Officer enquired and searched for all the noticed and judgments that had been received both at DM Office, Budaun as well as conveyed / transferred to his office i.e. Mining Office, Budaun. Further, there was no counsel empaneled or appointed by DM Compound, Budaun for filing, preparing and presentation of appeal before the designated Authorities of Income Tax Department.” Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced, did not condone the delay by dismissing the appeal being time barred.