Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order which dismissed her appeal due to delayed filing. She argued that similar delays had been condoned by the CIT(A) in other penalty proceedings for her, citing her explanation of being a divorced lady living in Himachal Pradesh and unaware of pending tax demands until a refund adjustment.
Held
The ITAT noted the Ld. CIT(A) had indeed condoned delays in other penalty appeals for the same assessee based on the same reasons. Finding divergent views and no justifiable basis for the differing treatment, the ITAT condoned the delay in filing the current appeal and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, despite having condoned similar delays for the same assessee in other penalty proceedings based on the same explanation.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 271(1)(d), 245, 250, 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order
PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Surat dt. 05/03/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11.
During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, an adjournment application has been submitted by Mr. Vigyan Prakash Arora, Counsel for the assessee. On perusal of the adjournment application, I find that no reasonable cause has been stated which prevented the Counsel from attending to the present proceedings. Further, it is noted that adjournment has been sought earlier on similar grounds and the Bench has been liberal in granting the adjournment. Taking into consideration the matter involved in the present appeal, it was decided to proceed with the matter as no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on the record. 3. In her ground of appeal
, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delayed filing of the appeal. As part of statement of facts, it was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the similar delay had happened while filing the appeal against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(d) of the Act and in those matters, similar reasons were submitted seeking condonation of delay and the reasons were found reasonable for condoning the delay and delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). However, when it comes to the mater under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a different approach and has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay. It was accordingly submitted that the said action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.
4. In the instant case, I find that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has submitted reason for the delayed filing of the said appeal by stating that she being a single divorced lady was living with her parents in Himachal Pradesh after her divorce and was not available at her address in Pinjore and she was not aware of any income tax demands pending. It was only after her refund for A.Y. 2022-23 was adjusted under section 245 that she got in touch with the office of AO, made the request for providing copy of all the orders and documents and the same were thereafter provided to the Counsel for filing the appeal and appeals were filed. The Ld. CIT(A) has however held that these were not reasonable cause for delayed filing of the appeal and the appeal was held not maintainable and the same was dismissed.
5. I also refer to the order under section 250 passed in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is available as part of the assessee’s paper book at page 44 to 47 wherein I find that the similar reason for the delayed in filing of the appeal has been stated by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay stating that the assessee has submitted the explanation for her fault to file the appeal within the prescribed time frame. The assessee has mentioned that she was divorced lady and had moved to her parents in Himachal Pradesh after her divorce and was not available at her address in Pinjore. Taking the explanation of the assessee into consideration and in the interest of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that there was sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal and delay was condoned. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed another order under section 250 in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act where again, for similar reasons the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A).
6. I therefore find that there are divergent views taken by the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the present appeal and the other two appeals whereas the reasons and explanation submitted by the assessee seeking condonation of delay is consistent across all the three matters. I do not see any justifiable basis to take a different view and considering the fact that in two of the matters, the explanation so furnished by the assessee has been found reasonable, I find that it would be just and proper that the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned and the appeal be admitted for necessary adjudication on merits. I accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh on merits as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.