Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 329 days. The assessee attributed the delay to a change in tax consultancy arrangements and administrative transition.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 329 days, subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that essential documents were not properly considered by the lower authorities and hence remanded the case back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication due to non-consideration of essential documents.
Sections Cited
250, 253(5), 253(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25/03/2024 impugned herein passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, [CIT(A)], Bangalore/Ld. CIT(A) in short (Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2020-21, in the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Intimation/Order dated 12-10-2021 by which various additions/disallowance were made by the CPC/AO.
ITANo.958/Bang/2025
At the outset, ld. AR of the Assessee has submitted that in this case, there is a delay of 329 days and therefore the condonation petition supported by affidavit, has been filed, demonstrating the reasons for delay, as under:
“APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 I, Manoj Palrecha, managing director of M/s Lake Chemicals Private Limited (hereinafter referred as `Appellant' for brevity), The Appellant respectfully submits this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 25.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2020-21.
As per the statutory provisions, the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have been filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the due date for filing the appeal was 25.05.2024. However, the present appeal is being filed on 25.04.2025, resulting in a delay of approximately 335 days.
The Appellant respectfully submits that the delay was neither intentional, nor due to negligence, but was caused due to a change in the company's tax consultancy arrangements during the relevant period. The sequence of events is as follows:
• After the order dated 25.03.2024 was passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the matter was under review by the company's then- consultant.
• However, during the internal review of ongoing tax matters and restructuring of professional engagements, the company transitioned to a new tax consultant around mid-2024.
• Unfortunately, in the process of handing over ongoing files and matters from the previous consultant to the new .
ITANo.958/Bang/2025
Page 3 of 5 professional advisor, the CIT(A) order and the appeal timelines were inadvertently missed.
• The Appellant, under the bona fide belief that all matters were being duly handled, became aware of the missed appeal timeline only upon detailed review by the newly engaged consultant during compliance closure in early 2025. • Upon realization of the delay, the Appellant took immediate corrective steps and prepared this appeal for filing before the Hon'ble ITAT at the earliest opportunity.
The Appellant humbly submits that there was no deliberate attempt to ignore or delay the appellate process, and the delay was purely on account of administrative transition and miscommunication during the change in consultancy.
The Appellant respectfully submits that the issues raised in the appeal are genuine and arguable, and the appeal is being filed in good faith. The Appellant stands to suffer significant prejudice if the delay is not condoned, and the matter is not heard on merits. On the other hand, no undue prejudice would be caused to the revenue by granting condonation and allowing the Appellant an opportunity to be heard.
In light of the above facts and circumstances, the Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
Condone the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal under Section 253(5) of the Act, and - Admit the appeal for hearing and disposal on merits, in the interest of equity and justice.
The Appellant remains ever grateful for the Hon'ble Tribunal's indulgence and prays for favorable consideration of this application.
I solemnly state that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that it conceals nothing and that no part of it is false.”
On the contrary, the ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee by submitting that no plausible reason has been given by the Assessee for .
ITANo.958/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 5 condoning the delay and, therefore, the delay may not be condoned or alternatively if the delay at all, is to be condoned then the same should by subjected to imposition of heavy cost of Rs.1 lakh.
Considering the facts and the reasons stated by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee which are supported with duly sworn Affidavit and the background of the Assessee, and the principle of substantial justice, we are of the view that the cause of delay shown by the Assessee appears to be bonafide, unintentional and reasonable but not sufficient and therefore the delay of 329 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned but subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’ as agreed to by the Assessee.
Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessee in order to justify its case, has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules (in short ‘Rules’) along with some documents, such as bank statements, SBI employees Provident Fund Challans, ledger extract of dividend ledger and audited books of account for the year under consideration, which appears to be essential and important for real adjudication of the issues, which also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner by the Ld. Commissioner, in the absence of aforesaid documents, which the Assessee has filed now and therefore for proper and just decision of the case, fair play and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by considering such documents and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in the above terms.
ITANo.958/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 5
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.