M/S OMKARESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MYSORE

The Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) challenging the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that there was delay of 80 days in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). The assessee furnished explanations for the delay by stating that the delay has occurred due to ill health of representative. However, the Ld CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay since the above said explanation was not supported by credible evidence. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has offered explanations for the delay and the same was also explained in person by a representative of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee could have furnished the documents in support of the illness of the Chartered Accountant, if an opportunity was given by Ld CIT(A). In any case, the delay has not occurred at the assessee’s end. He further submitted that the delay was only 80 days and in the interest of natural justice, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the same. He prayed that the Tribunal may kindly condone the delay occurred in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A).

On the contrary, the Ld D.R opposed the prayer of Ld A.R.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessee has offered an explanation for the delay of 80 days that has occurred in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). It is well settled proposition of law that the condonation petitions should be considered liberally, since the assessee is not going to gain anything by delaying things. In this regard, we derive support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Ms. Katiji (167 ITR 471)(SC). As per the explanations furnished, the delay has occurred due to the ill health of the Chartered Accountant, meaning thereby, the assessee should not be faulted with for the delay that occurred at the end of the representative. Accordingly we are of the view that the explanations furnished by the assessee for the delay would warrant that the delay should be condoned. Accordingly we condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A).

We notice that the Ld CIT(A) did not have occasion to adjudicate the issue on merits, since he had dismissed the appeal in limine. Hence the issues urged on merits deserve to be set aside to his file. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore the issues urged on merits to his for adjudicating them. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.