COLOURTECH COATING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DOMBIVALI vs. DCIT-1, KALYAN

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in gross violation Of principles Of Natural Justice as barred by limitation without considering the fact that the predecessor Of the learned CIT(A) passing the impugned order had already taken on record, the affidavit in support Of the Appellant's application for condonation of delay and expressly condoned the delay in the pre faceless era, rendering the impugned finding contrary to the record and unsustainable in law.

We note that the impugned assessment order is an ex parte order. We also note there was a delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A). In this regard, assessee explained that assessment order dated 22.12.2017 was received at its registered office on 02.01.2018 and was handed over to an office boy in the evening with the responsibility of delivering the same to Accounts and Finance Department at another office location on the following morning. However, the said order was inadvertently misplaced by the office boy at his residence and, consequently, was not made available to Accounts and Finance Department. It was stated that after extensive search at the registered office and branch office, assessment order was eventually found at the residence of the office boy and appeal was filed immediately thereafter.

To address the issue in hand before us, we need to delve into the understanding of the expression "sufficient cause". Sub-section 3 of section 249 contemplates that ld. CIT(A) may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period, if he is satisfied that there was a "sufficient cause" for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Courts have been unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally.

We have considered the submissions made before us and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the orders of authorities below. The facts of the case have already been narrated in the above paragraphs. We note that assessee had furnished a specific explanation for the delay, namely, that assessment order received on 02.01.2018 was inadvertently misplaced after being handed over to an office boy for transmission to Accounts and Finance Department and was subsequently traced at his residence. Appeal was thereafter filed on 27.06.2018. The explanation was also stated to have been supported by an affidavit of Director of assessee company.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that explanation furnished by assessee deserves to be considered in a pragmatic and justice-oriented manner. We take note of the fact that delay was not on account of any deliberate decision on the part of assessee to forego or postpone its appellate remedy. The explanation furnished relates to an inadvertent misplacement of assessment order within the office process, which was subsequently traced and appeal was filed. The cause so explained cannot, in our considered view, be characterised as mala fide or as a deliberate attempt to delay the appellate proceedings.

In the light of the above, if we examine the facts, then it would reveal that there is delay of 146 days in filing of first appeal. For the just decision of the controversy, considering the explanation furnished by assessee and the material placed on record, we find it appropriate to condone the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A).

Having condoned the delay, in the given set of facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of appeal on merits in accordance with law. Since appeal was dismissed in limine on the issue of limitation, grounds raised by assessee on merits have not been adjudicated by ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claims made by it.

We also direct assessee to be diligent in making all its submissions and to comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) for fixing the date of hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes.

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