M/S. LION ESTATES AND PROPERTIES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 256/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 July 2022AY 2012-133 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a two-day delay in filing. The assessee argued that the delay was minimal and unintentional, and that the merits of the case were not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether a minimal and unintentional delay in filing an appeal should lead to its dismissal without considering the merits of the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
3,926 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, CA, Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru

ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 14/02/2022 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Y. 2012-13.

The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine as there was a delay of two days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The Ld.AR submitted that ideally if the date of receipt of the appeal is excluded, the delay amounts to be of only one day and there cannot be any negligence that could attribute for one day delay in filing the Page 2 of appeal before the first appellate authority. The Ld.AR submitted that the issues alleged before the Ld.CIT(A) on merits has not been decided and the appeal was dismissed for non-condonation of delay.

On the contrary, the Ld.DR placed reliance on orders passed by authorities below.

We have perused the submissions advanced and note that substantial justice has not been rendered to the assessee in the present facts of the case.

He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471.

When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. We have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.(supra), if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice.

Respectfully following the above view, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits after considering the submissions / evidences filed by assessee.

Page 3 of Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 12th July, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →