Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These two appeals by the assessee are arising out of different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai in & 184/17-18/CIT(A)-9(Tr.), both dated 21.03.2019. The assessments were framed by the ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Chennai for the assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15 u/s.143(3) of & 1451/Chny/2019 2 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 10.03.2016 & 30.11.2016 respectively.
At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in- limine i.e., delay of 647 days in assessment year 2013-14 and 387 in assessment year 2014-15. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A)’s orders in both the years is exactly identical and the reasons stated by the assessee before CIT(A) are identical and grounds raised
in both the years regarding the order of CIT(A) not condoning the delay is also identically worded. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the 2013-14 and the relevant ground No.2 reads as under:-
2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in the filing of the Appeal.
3. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the reasons in the condonation petition before CIT(A), which reads as under:- “Meanwhile, orders were received for A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15 and I, the managing trustee was very unwell during the year 2016 and was to undergo an eye surgery and due to medical condition I could not file the appeal for the two assessment years within the stipulated time.” The ld.counsel stated that the CIT(A) first said that no evidences have been adduced in support of the above claim and further, the & 1451/Chny/2019 3 reason prescribed for the delay as mentioned above, per se, are not sufficient and good reason for condoning the inordinate delay of 647 days in AY 2013-14 and 387 days in AY 2014-15. The ld.counsel for the assessee particularly referred to para 5.3 of the CIT(A) order for AY 2013-14, which reads as under:- 5.3 The submissions made are duly considered. However, it is seen that the reaons stated do not justify the inordinate delay in filing of appeal i.e. by a period of 647 days. In the instant case, it is the submission that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal due to eye surgery of the managing trustee. However, no evidences have been adduced in support of the said claim. Further, the said reason ascribed for the delay as mentioned above cannot, per se, be justified to be a sufficient and good reason for condoning the inordinate delay of 647 days and is attributable to inaction by the appellant. The inaction on the part of the appellant in not filing the appeal on time is also held to be deliberate since this is not the first year in which the appellant is filing an appeal. The appellant is thus fully conscious of the limitation period for filing the appeals and yet failed to take steps to adhere to the same. Therefore, the reasons adduced for belated filing of appeal are thus held to be without reasonable or justifiable cause. Under these circumstances, considering the period of delay involved in the instant case, adopting a liberal view in condoning the delay, in my opinion, would amount to granting of license to file appeal at will, which would defeat the very purpose of limitation provisions laid down under the statute for necessary compliance.” 3.1 Now, the ld.counsel for the assessee before us pleaded one more opportunity as the assessee could not file evidences regarding eye surgery of the managing trustee of the assessee and he was unwell during the year 2016.
Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR opposed the condonation before CIT(A) and even setting aside of the matter before CIT(A). & 1451/Chny/2019 4 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the reasons stated by the assessee that the managing trustee was unwell during the year 2016 and also undergone eye surgery and due to medical conditions, he could not file appeal and thereby caused delay of 647 days in AY 2013-14 and 387 days in AY 2014-15, we are of the view that the CIT(A) cannot simply brush aside this reason but no doubt he is entitled to look into the evidences. Hence, we set aside the orders passed by CIT(A) in both the years and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication of condonation of delay after considering the evidences and in case, he condones the delays, pass speaking order on the issues before him, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.