M/S. GMR AIRPORTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1550/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 February 2020AY 2016-172 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & Ors. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 79 days. The CIT(A) had not condoned this delay. The assessee argued that the delay was small and should be condoned in the interest of justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, despite technical considerations.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri. Jagadish, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Anurag Srivastava, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 02.12.2019Pronounced: 07.02.2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 M/s. GMR Airports Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of SKIP House, Museum Road, Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru – 560 02579. Jurisdictional Officer PAN : AAACM 7791 H DCIT, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Jagadish, CA Revenue by : Shri. Anurag Srivastava, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 02.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) - 3, Bengaluru, dated 24.05.2019 for Assessment Year 2016-17. In addition to various grounds raised by the assessee on merit, this is one of the ground raised by the assessee before us that learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

3. In the course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that in par 4.1 of his order, the learned CIT(A) has noted about various contentions raised by the assessee before him in respect of condonation of delay. He further pointed out that in the same para, it is noted by the CIT(A) that the delay was of 79 days only and hence, in the interest of justice, this small delay should be condoned. In the course of hearing of the present case, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that this small delay of 79 should be condoned and the matter be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a decision on merit.

Page 2 of 2 3. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC). Learned DR submitted that there was no reasonable cause for delay.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & Ors. (supra) that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Respectfully following this judgment, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision on merit, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both the sides. In view of this, no adjudication on merit is called for at this present stage and we make no comment on merit.

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →