Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals of assessee are arising out of orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-25, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-25/IT-234 & 232 /2017-18 vide dated 11.04.2019. The Assessments were framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(1)(5), Mumbai (in short ITO / AO) for the A.Ys.
The only issue in these two appeals of assessee is against the orders of CIT(A) in not condoning the delay despite the fact that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time. The assessee has raised identically worded grounds except quantum in both the Assessment Year’s i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011- 12, hence, we will take the facts from Assessment Year 2010-11 in and will decide the issue. For this assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (referred as CIT(A)) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal on the ground or grounds as stated in the appellate order or otherwise.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (referred as CIT(A)) erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,26,549/- on the ground or grounds as contained in the appellate order or otherwise.”
At the outset, it is noticed that the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.08.2016 and assessee in form No. 35 i.e. appeal form to be filed before CIT(A), the date of receipt of order is shown as 30.09.2016.
5.2 The assessee has claimed that the delay was occasioned due to the fact that the assessee has met with a major accident on 03.03.2012 and had some medical complication in September, 2013. The assessee claimed that he had fractured his hand in May, 2016 and he had a varicose vein procedure done in August, 2016. It was claimed that due to the above medical regions and ignorance of law, he was unable to file an appeal in time. All this has been stated on affidavit also.
The CIT(A) has not accepted the request for condonation of delay of the assessee and main reasoning given by CIT(A) in Para 6.1 for not condoning the delay reads as under: - “6.1 In view of the various latest decisions of the Supreme Court which reflect a rethinking on the matter, the present appeal of the assessee, which is instituted after a delay of a minimum of 14 months is held to be barred by limitation. It is held that the assessee has no sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The appeal papers are held to have been filed beyond time and they suffer from delays and latches. The delay is not condoned under section 249(3) of the Act and the appeal is not admitted. For statistical purposes the application for the appeal is treated is dismissed.”