GANESH SOUNDARRAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2802/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2018AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 261 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an IOC dealer, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 261 days due to the assessment order being misplaced. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to allow for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai in dated 29.08.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Shri S.Sridhar represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Awajit Rakshit represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee is an individual, who is doing the business of dealer in selling petrol, diesel and lubricants of Indian Oil Corporation. It was a submission that the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act in the case of assessee was completed on 09.03.2016 and the assessment order was served on the above address of assessee on 10.03.2016. It was a submission that the assessment order was misplaced in the files of the assessee. It was a submission that only when the Penalty Proceedings were initiated, the assessee was made aware that appeal has not been filed against the assessment order. Immediately, assessee traced the assessment order and the appeal was filed with a delay of 261 days before the ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that on appeal, the ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. It was a submission that by not condoning the delay, the assessee has been put to substantial injustice. It was the prayer that the delay in filing of appeal may be condoned and the Ld.CIT(A) may be directed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

4.

In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the basic principles, on Appellate Proceedings that 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. This proposition has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v.

Mst. Katiji And Others in [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). In the circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee does not derive any benefit by not filing the appeal on time. In fact, the explanation given by the assessee is a plausible explanation. The affidavit filed by the assessee has also not been found to be false. This being so, we are of the view that the delay of 261 days in filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. Consequently delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld.CIT(A) is condoned.

And the issue in this appeal of assessee is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 31st May, 2018, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →