MR.GAFFOOR SAJJID PASHA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 40/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 February 2018AY 2012-133 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 of 156 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 156 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of delay without condoning it. The assessee's explanation for the delay was professional preoccupation of their tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned on the grounds of professional preoccupation of the tax consultant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC-A’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad .K, JDIT DR

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of CIT (A) – 7 Bangalore dated 07.11.2017 for A. Y. 2012 – 13.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 6 grounds. As per ground No. 2, this is the grievance of the assessee that the CIT (A) was in error in dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of not filing the appeal in time and without condoning the delay of 156 days in filing the appeal before him.

3.

Learned AR of the assessee submitted that in Para 4.0 of his order, learned CIT (A) has reproduced the contents of the assessee’s application for condonation of delay. He pointed out that in Para 4 of the said application, it was submitted by the assessee that soon after the receipt of the assessment order, it was placed before Sri S. K. Natraj, Income Tax Practioner, who is also auditor of the assessee and also his Tax consultant and because of his professional preoccupation, the matter escaped his attention and later when notice was issued by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c), the matter was again placed before Sri S. K. Natraj, Income Tax Practioner, the lapse of not filing appeal against the assessment order was noticed by him and he informed the assessee that because of his professional preoccupation, the matter of advising the assessee about filing of appeal within due date escaped his attention and thereafter, the assessee approached Smt. Veena D S, chartered Accountant for further advice and on her advice, the appeal was filed with application for condonation of delay. He submitted that learned CIT (A) as per Para 4.6 of his order did not condone the delay by saying that the reasons explained for delay are not justifiable. He submitted that in the interest of justice and in the facts of the present case, the said delay should be condoned and the matter be restored to CIT (A) for decision on merit. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

4.

I have considered the rival submissions. In the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice, I feel that the delay of 156 days in filing the appeal before CIT (A) should have been condoned by CIT (A). I condone the same and I restore the matter back to CIT (A) for a decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, matter on merit does not call for any adjudication at the present stage.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →