MULUND VIKAS PRABHA CHS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In this regard, it is noted that the appeal against the quantum proceedings are pending before the ld. CIT(A). In the present appeal which is against the imposition of penalty, there is a delay of 185 days in filing the said appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee has not furnished any reasons to explain the said delay before the ld. CIT(A) , for want of which appeal has been dismissed in limine.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no opportunity was given by the ld. CIT(A) to explain the case for the delay and seek condonation. He thus, prayed an opportunity be granted for furnishing the reasons to explain the delay caused in filing the first appeal which may be considered by the ld. CIT(A) in accordance of the provisions of the Act and take up the matter accordingly.

At the first appellate stage, due to the fact that the appellant had filed for rectification of the original assessment order, based on which penalty was to be levied, the delay of 185 days occurred in filing the said appeal. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine as not maintainable on account of delay in filing the first appeal since assessee could not demonstrate “sufficient cause” in terms of section 249(3) of the Act.

We have considered the submissions made before us. Ld. Sr. DR objected on the submissions made by the assessee by contending that the assessee has defaulted before the authorities below in complying with the requirements. We have perused the material placed on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The facts of the case have already been narrated in the above paragraph.

In the light of the above factual matrix and submissions made before us, we accept the prayer of the ld. Counsel and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) where the assessee may furnish its petition for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal which ld. CIT(A) may consider on its own merits as per section 249 of the Act and proceed accordingly. We also observe that the present appeal is in respect of imposition of penalty and the appeal against quantum proceedings are pending before the ld. CIT(A). Keeping this fact in perspective, it would be appropriate that the appeal relating to imposition of penalty is adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) after the outcome of the appeal pending for quantum proceeding as it has a direct bearing on the penalty so imposed.

Accordingly, the case is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by it. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all its submissions so as to comply with the notices issued for fixing the date of hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed for statistical purposes.

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