RAVI BHUSHAN P. TRIVEDI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 806/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 June 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing reasonable cause due to the chartered accountant's negligence. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of approximately two months. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT also suffered from a delay, attributed to the negligence of their chartered accountant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT was justifiable and should be condoned. The primary issue was the procedural delay rather than the merits of the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Bandai
For Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh
Hearing: 25.06.2018Pronounced: 26.06.2018

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 06.10.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

In the appellate order, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine as he noted that there was a delay of about two months in filing the appeal before him.

3.

Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

At the outset we note that there is a delay of 206 days in filing this appeal before the ITAT. However, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that actually there is a Ravi Bhushan P. Trivedi delay of only 93 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. He submitted that the figure of 206 has arisen because of wrong mentioning of the date of receipt of the order. The reasonable cause for the delay has been attributed to the negligence on the part of the then chartered accountant engaged by the assessee.

5.

Upon careful consideration in the substantial interest of justice we are inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly the delay in filing this appeal before the ITAT is condoned.

6.

We further note that the reasonable cause for the delay for about two months in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was also the non- co-operative attitude of the then chartered accountant of the assessee. This has not been accepted by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

7.

Upon careful consideration and hearing both the counsel, we are of the considered opinion that on the anvil of reasonable cause attributed by the assessee, the delay of two months in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the said delay.

8.

Accordingly, we remit this appeal to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has Ravi Bhushan P. Trivedi undertaken to appear before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within two months of this order.

9.

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →