M/S BALAJI AUTOS ,AMBATHUR vs. ACIT , NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 8, CHENNAI

PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order

passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-

9, Chennai, dated 24.05.2019 and pertains to assessment year

2014-15.

“1. For that the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction.

2 ITA No.535/Chny/2022

3 ITA No.535/Chny/2022

assessee is time barred by 1070 days, for which, a petition for

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with Affidavit

explaining the reasons for delay, has been filed by the

assessee. The Ld.AR for the assessee referring to petition filed

by the assessee submitted that, the order of the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Chennai dated 24.05.2019 was not received

by the assessee and only while filing appeal on 24.03.2022 before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order passed

under 143(3) r.w.s.147 for the assessment year 2014-15 in the e-filing

portal, the assessee came to know that the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the appeal against

the assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 24.05.2019. Further,

the learned AR submitted that from 24.03.2022 which is the date

on which the passing of the order was first known to the

assessee, the delay was only 35 days. The assessee did not

receive the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) uploaded in the e-filing portal was not properly readable.

Since, the assessee did not receive a copy of the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) physically, the

4 ITA No.535/Chny/2022

assessee approached the office of the Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) to get a clear copy of the order. After several visits,

the assessee was informed that since the appeal before the first

appellate authority has become faceless, the office of

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who passed the

impugned order, is not operating presently and hence a clear

copy I true copy of the order was not issued. Thereafter, the

assessee approached Shri.T.Banusekar, Chartered

Accountant for further course of action. Shri.T.Banusekar,

Chartered Accountant on going through the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had informed the

assessee that an appeal can be filed before the Hon'ble

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal along with a petition to condone

the delay as the statutory lime limit for filing the appeal has

elapsed. This leads to a huge delay in filing of the appeal.

However, such delay is neither intentional nor to derive any

undue benefit, but purely on wrong professional advice and also

ignorance of law. Therefore, the delay in filing of the appeal

may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for hearing.

In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.

5 ITA No.535/Chny/2022

Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in [1979] 118 ITR

0326.

strongly opposing the petition filed by the assessee for

condonation of delay submitted that the reasons given by the

assessee do not come within the ambit of reasonable and

bonafide reasons, which can be considered for condonation of

delay and hence, appeal filed by the assessee may be

dismissed as not maintainable.

petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay of 1070

days. We have also carefully considered reasons given by the

assessee for delay in filing of the appeal. We find that prima

facie the reasons given by the assessee, in the affidavit for

condonation of delay of 1070 days, seems to be not bona fide.

We have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee and

also examined sequence of events and after considering

necessary facts, we are of the considered view that the reasons

given by the assessee in affidavit is not bona fide. Therefore,

we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the

6 ITA No.535/Chny/2022

reasons given by the assessee in the petition for condonation

of delay in filing of the appeal.

evolved by the decision of various High Courts, including the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases, where it has been,

time and again, held that when merits and technicalities pitted

against each other, then merit alone deserves to be prevailed,

because, if you throw out a meritorious case out of judicial

scrutiny on the grounds of technicalities, then you may deprive

the right of the petitioner in pursuing their case. At the same

time, various Courts have held that rules of limitation are not

meant to destroy the rights of parties, they are meant to see

that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their

remedy promptly, within the time bound prescribed under the

Act. Further, in a case, where, for the reasons beyond the

control of the petitioner, the appeal could not be filed, then the

Courts are well equipped with power to condone the delay, if

the petitioner explains the delay in filing of the appeal with a

reasonable cause. However, there is no law or mandate in the

Act, to condone the delay in each and every case. But, it

depends upon all facts of each case and the reasons given by

7 ITA No.535/Chny/2022

the parties for condonation of delay. Therefore, one has to go

by the facts of its own case and the reasons given by the

petitioner for condonation of delay. In this case, on perusal of

reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal,

we find that although it appears, the assessee is not deriving

any benefit by not filing the appeal within the due date

prescribed under the Act, but, from contents of petition filed by

the assessee, we could easily make out a case that the

assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeal against

the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, in our considered view, for

these vague reasons, such huge delay of 1070 days in filing of

the appeal, cannot be condoned.

assessee, in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of

Uttar Pradesh &Ors.(supra) that ignorance of law is also an

excuse, but if you examine the facts of the present case, we are

of the considered view that the assessee is not ignorant of law,

because, the assessee was well aware of the Income Tax

proceedings and further, hired professional Chartered

Accountant, for representing its case. Thus, we are of the

8 ITA No.535/Chny/2022

considered view that the case laws relied upon by the

assessee, are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that

the assessee has failed to make out a prima facie case for

condonation of delay of 1070 days in filing of the appeal before

the Tribunal. Further, the reasons given by the assessee in the

affidavit does not come under reasonable cause as prescribed

under the Act, for condonation of delay. Hence, we reject the

petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and

dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर �संह) (जी. मंजुनाथ) (Mahavir Singh) (G. Manjunatha ) उपा�य�/ Vice-President लेखा सद!य / Accountant Member चे#नई/Chennai, $दनांक/Dated 29th July, 2022 DS

आदेश क� �(त)ल*प अ+े*षत/Copy to: Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आयु,त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु,त/CIT 5. *वभागीय �(त(न0ध/DR 6. गाड3 फाईल/GF.