DANGETI MURALI KRISHNA, TANUKU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

Aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld.AO, an appeal was filed before the Ld.CIT(A), stating that no proper opportunity was given to him and it was also stated that he is not well aware of the e-mail proceedings etc. and hence could not respond properly to the notices issued by the Department. An appeal was filed before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 173 days, the Ld.CIT(A) held that there is no justifiable cause for filing the appeal with an inordinate delay of 173 days, hence, the appeal was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case and grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

An appeal was filed before ITAT by the appellant stating that the delay in filing of appeal before Ld.CIT(A) is neither intentional nor to scuttle the proceedings of the Department. It is a case of mere ignorance about the law and the legal procedures. In view of the same, the Ld.AR of the appellant has pleaded before ITAT that a lenient view may be taken and the assessee may be provided with an effective opportunity to present his case properly with necessary evidences before the Ld.CIT(A). It was also argued that the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the case on merits and also on the issues raised in the ground of appeal mentioned in Form No.35. 5. The Ld.DR opposed the plea of the Ld.AR of the appellant stating that there is no sufficient cause for the appellant for not providing the details before the Ld.AO and for filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)

Heard rival submissions. From the order of the Ld.CIT(A), it is observed that the appeal was filed with the delay, but the appeal order was not adjudicated on merits. Since the delay is not inordinate, the Bench decides to condone the delay of 173 days by taking into consideration the plea of the appellant that he has not understood the legal implications and the matter was brought to the notice of the Chartered Accountant immediately after issuing the tax demand notice sent by the Department. As the delay is unintentional and in view of the prayer of the Ld.AR of the appellant that they would provide all the records and explanations and cooperate with the department for proper adjudication of the issues raised by the Ld.AO in the assessment order, the Bench condones the delay. Moreover, the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits. In this regard, reliance placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 297 CTR 614, where it was held that the Ld.CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal only due to delay/non cooperation of the appellant, but also the Ld.CIT(A) should adjudicate all the issues raised in the grounds of appeal. In view of the same, the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate all the issues raised by the appellant. But the fact remains that there is a delay before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence the Bench decides to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant and this amount should be paid to AP State Legal Services Authority within one month of receipt of this order. With the above directions, the matter is remitted to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, विशाखापट्नम / DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 4. 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file