V.MURUGESAN,MADURAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Madurai, dated 22.02.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.

Shri B. Sivaraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was a delay of 697 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). According to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) failed to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee filed petition under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for rectification on 27.04.2015. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessment order was passed on 26.03.2015. The rectification petition filed under Section 154 of the Act was rejected by the Assessing Officer on 15.05.2015. Admittedly, thereafter the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) rejected the appeal by not condoning the delay of 697 days in filing the appeal before him. By placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in Supply Chain Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in dated 07.06.2019, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical circumstances, when the assessee was prosecuting remedies under Section 154 of the Act, this Tribunal found that since the assessee was prosecuting remedies before other forum, there was a reasonable cause for not filing appeal before the CIT(Appeals) within the prescribed time. Accordingly, this Tribunal condoned the delay. In this case also, according to the Ld. counsel, the facts are identical, therefore, the delay of 697 days may be condoned and the appeal may be restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals).

On the contrary, Shri K. Hari Govind, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that 697 days is a long delay of about two years. Therefore, the assessee has to explain the reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

Having heard Shri B. Sivaraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee and Shri K. Hari Govind, the Ld. D.R., this Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) within the prescribed time. It is not in dispute that the assessee had filed Miscellaneous Petition under Section 154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer for rectification. After the petition filed was rejected by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). In the meantime, there was a delay of 697 days. The very fact that the assessee filed Miscellaneous Petition under Section 154 of the Act and prosecuting the same before the Assessing Officer sincerely and diligently shows that the assessee is taking continuous steps. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in Supply Chain Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra) condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the delay of 697 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) is hereby condoned. Now the appeal filed by the assessee stands restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.