Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being delayed by 110 days, as the delay in filing Form 67 was not condoned. The assessee had filed an appeal after receiving an order u/s.143(1) which processed their return without granting International Tax Credit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 was a procedural issue and not mandatory, and that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing Form 67 for the appeal can be condoned, and if not condoning it leads to denial of substantial justice.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessee by Shri Anup Shaha - AR Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 29/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 17.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The Assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the delay in filing appeal can't be condoned. The [A] appellant prays that the delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing.
2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, it be held that delay in filing of form 67 procedural and not mandatory. Delay in filing form 67 should not lead to denial of FTC. Accordingly, the relief so denied be restored and just & due relied be given to the appellant.
3. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or leave any of the above grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. Ld.AR filed a paper book containing copy of Affidavit, copy of grievances raised, copy of ITR Acknowledgement, copy of Relevant part of ITR Form and copy of Form
67. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 110 days. The delay was due to the fact that Assessee after receiving order u/s.143(1), filed a grievance petition before CBDT as Assessee’s Return of Income was processed by Centralized Processing Center(CPC) without giving International Tax Credit. Since assessee was pursuing alternative remedy, Assessee had not filed appeal within time. This is a Bonafide mistake on the part of the Assessee. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. Ld.AR invited our attention to the Affidavit filed by the Assessee. Ld.AR pleaded that ld.CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit. Ld.AR invited our attention to Form No.67 for A.Y.2021-22 and submitted that otherwise Assessee is [A] eligible for International Tax Credit. Ld.AR relied on the following case laws :
1. Kedar Mankar Vs. ACIT, Circle-8,Pune in ITA No.1624/PUN/2024.
2. Deepak ShimogaPadmaraju Vs. ADI, CPC in ITA No.239/BAN/2024. Submission of ld.DR :
3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2021-22 on 29.10.2021, the due date for filing Return of Income as per order u/s.143(1) was 31.12.2021. Thus, assessee had filed Return of Income within the time. The Centralized Processing Center passed an order u/s.143(1) on 05.07.2022 without granting credit for International Tax. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appeal was delayed before ld.CIT(A) by 110 days, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted due to delay. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.
4.1 We have perused the appeal filed by the assessee and it is noted that there was valid and sufficient reason for delay.
4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “ 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 4.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Vs. UOI [2018] 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bombay)[06-11-2017] has observed as under while condoning the delay in that case : Quote ,“ 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the [A] cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. The Apex Court also held there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay” Unquote. 4.4 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that grave injustice is caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay, by ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay.
4.5 Respectfully following the judicial precedence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall file all details before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.