Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 762 days, which was reduced to 45 days after excluding the COVID period. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT seeking condonation of this delay, citing difficulties in collecting essential documents and the Managing Director's COVID-19 infection.
Held
The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and condoned it, noting that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the condonation petition. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and if the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the condonation request.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R Per: George George K., VP This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 16.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). The relevant assessment year is 2013-14.
There is a delay of 8 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit of the Director of the assessee company stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons Canaan Granites & Crushers Pvt. Ltd. stated for delay in filing this appeal, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for late filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 8 days in filing this appeal and proceed to disposed of the same on merits.
At the very outset we notice that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. There has been a delay of 762 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) (excluding the Covid period as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement, the delay is 45 days). The CIT(A) had observed in the impugned order that the assessee ought to have filed the appeal on or before 28.01.2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement excluding the period of limitation starts from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. The learned A.R. submitted that the actual delay is only 45 days which is on account of the reason that the Managing Director of the assessee company, Ms. Aysha Ashad Davood had contacted Covid, because of which the preparation of appeal got delayed and thereafter the period of exclusion set in as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in MA NO. 21/22 in suo moto Writ Petition CA No. 3/2020. The learned A.R. placed on record a medical certificate stating that the assessee’s Managing Director was suffering from Covid and high blood pressure subsequent to with the assessee could not file the appeal within the due date, i.e. 28.01.2019.
On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
Canaan Granites & Crushers Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, assessment order dated 19.02.2019 was served on the assessee company on 28.12.2019. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28.01.2020. However, the appeal was filed only on 01.03.2022 resulting in a delay of 762 days. Out of the 762 days, 717 days, i.e. from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 will be excluded from the limitation in calculating the time limit for filing the appeal in light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA No. 21/22. Therefore, the actual delay is 45 days in filing the appeal i.e. from 28.01.2020 to 15.03.2020. The assessee had given the following reasons for the aforementioned delay of 45 days: -
“For the remaining 45-day delay (from 28.01.2020 to 15.03.2020), the company provided the following justifications:
1. 1. Collection of Documents: The directors of the company were engaged in obtaining essential documents from the Geologist's Office, ROC, and Courts. These documents were necessary to defend the company and gather evidence regarding illegal business activities conducted by the AOP and its members under the company's name without proper permissions and disclosures.
2. Health Issues of the Managing Director: The Managing Director of M/s Canaan Granites & Crushers Pvt. Ltd, Mr. Ashad D.A., contracted COVID- 19, causing a halt in the preparation of the appeal.”
Canaan Granites & Crushers Pvt. Ltd.
We find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause and the CIT(A) has ignored the genuine hardship faced by assessee company during the Covid period and pre-covid period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katij & Ors [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) had laid down the following propositions when the courts are considering the delay condonation application: - i) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ii. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. iii. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. iv. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the 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. v. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. vi. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
Canaan Granites & Crushers Pvt. Ltd. 7. From a perusal of the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the delay should not take away the right of the assessee to seek justice. In the instant case there is genuine reason for delay and we condone the same. Since the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) has been condoned, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the merits of the case. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd April, 2025.