Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals with a delay of 13 days. The assessee's auditor was in Chennai, while the assessee was in a remote location, leading to a delay in filing the condonation application before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in-limine without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days in filing the appeals before it. However, it noted that the assessee had failed to file a proper delay condonation application before the CIT(A). The Tribunal remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for considering the delay condonation application.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) is liable to be condoned, and if so, whether the appeals should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against three separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (all orders dated 04.11.2024) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 444/CHNY/2025 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020- 21.
There is a delay of 13 days each in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed condonation applications stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals along with affidavit of the Principal Officer of the assessee society. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing of these appeals are as under:- “9. The appeal ought to have filed 03.01.2025, now being filed with a delay. Since the Society (Trust) is a school, during the month of December and January all the staffs and teachers were engaged in preparing the question papers and conducting examination. Preparing students for the Board examinations thereof, followed by that there was a long vacation of Christmas and Pongal holiday’s during which the school remained closed and concern staffs following up the matter were absent in the subsequent days led to the delay in filing the appeal, only for the above reasons stated, we could not file the appeal on time before the Hon’ble ITAT.
This delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to circumstances mentioned above. I would be put to irreparable loss and hardship if the delay is not condoned. On the other hand, no loss would be caused to the Department and thus the balance of convenience lies in my favour.”
On perusal of the aforesaid reason stated, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be faulted for non-filing the appeals on time. There is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits.
to 444/CHNY/2025 4. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has dismissed these appeals in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The CIT(A) had not condoned the delay of 279 days, 120 days and 115 days in filing the appeals before him. The CIT(A) had noticed (refer para 2.7 of CIT(A) order) that assessee had not given any reason for belated filing of appeals before him. Consequently, the CIT(A) held that there is no sufficient cause and dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay.
Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is located in Vadalur, a remote place in Cuddalore. It was submitted that the assessee’s auditor was based in Chennai and consequently, the assessee could not file the delay condonation application on time before the CIT(A). It was submitted by the Ld.AR, by referring to para 2.7.1 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had sought adjournment so as to place on record the relevant documents, as the auditor was preoccupied in tax audit and filing of ITR. It was submitted that the delay condonation application was omitted to be filed on time. It was prayed, in the interest of justice and equity the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to file delay condonation to 444/CHNY/2025 application so as to properly explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the First Appellate Authority.
The Ld.DR supported the orders of the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. On perusal of Column 15 of Form 35, it is seen that assessee has not given any reason for belated filing of appeals before the First Appellate Authority. It was stated in the said column, “the reason will be submitted later”. However, the assessee has failed to file any delay condonation application before the CIT(A). We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing the delay condonation application before the First Appellate Authority. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to explain the reasons for belated filing of appeals before the CIT(A). For the aforesaid purpose, the cases are remitted back to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file proper condonation application and supporting affidavit if any, explaining the reasons for late filing of appeals before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) shall consider the delay condonation to 444/CHNY/2025 petition and pass order in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2025 at Chennai.