Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT
Date of hearing 06.08.2019 Date of pronouncement 03.09.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 01/09/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16 raising following grounds:
1) That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in not admitting the appeal on account of delay in filing of appeal and thereby rejecting appellant’s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2) Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in not considering the appellant company’s written submissions filed on merits regarding excess charges of interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.7,46,891/-
Before us, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that there was a delay of one month in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal and dismissed the same. The Ld. counsel submitted that the order of processing under section 143 (1) of the Act was received on registered email, of company’s accountant, which due to oversight on his part, was not delivered to the counsel of the assessee responsible for filing appeal, hence the appeal could not be filed in time. He submitted that in identical circumstances in the another case of M/s Bharti (RBM) Holding Private Limited (PAN: AADCB 2350C) the Ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay and admitted appeal. Accordingly, he submitted that in view of the identical circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant case should also be directed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for deciding on merit.
The learned DR, on the other hand, objected for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard the rival submission of the parties. We find that the assessee filed appeal on 12.02.2016 against intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 01/12/2015, which was claimed to have been served on 15/12/2015. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.02.2016 and thus, there 28 days i.e. less than one month from the date of receipt of the order by the assessee. The assessee requested for condonation of the delay on the ground that intimation was sent by email which could not be sent to the office of the counsel for filing appeal on the time. According to the Ld. CIT(A), this was not sufficient cause for not filing appeal on time. We find that first appellate authority in the case of M/s Bharti (RBM) Holding Private Limited, while deciding appeal No. 347/2015-16 has condoned the delay on identical grounds and admitted the appeal observing as under:
3.0 The appeal of the appellant was filed in this office on 12.02.2016 against the order passed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. On going through the details, it is seen that the order against which appeal was filed, was served on 19.12.2015 as evident from the Form No. 35 submitted by the appellant. As per the provisions of the I.T. Act, the time limit for filing of appeal was within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand. Therefore, the company was required to file the appeal on or before 18.01.2016 which the appellant has failed to do. In this regard, the appellant submitted its submissions before the undersigned for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It has been stated that the intimation dated 01.12.2015 was emailed to the appellant company on 19.12.2015 at the registered e-mail of the company’s accountant, due to whose oversight the appeal could not be filed in time. Affidavit of the accountant to this effect was also enclosed. For the sake of natural justice, the aforesaid submissions of the appellant are accepted and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Moreover, we find that delay in filing the appeal is for a period of less than one month. We are of the view by not filing the appeal on time, the assessee is not getting benefit in any manner and, therefore, there could be no intention of the assessee in making delay in filing the appeal knowingly. We are of the opinion that the assessee should not be deprived of substantial justice due to delay of short period of less than one month and that too explained by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct to condone the delay and admit the appeal and decide in accordance with law.
The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd September, 2019.