PARKER CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata dated 04.08.2016 for AY 2008-09 whereby Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as barred by limitation.

At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 280 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay on the ground that its Authorized Representative, Sri Rajesh Dugar, FCA could not prepare and file the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time due to his injury which was followed by Medical Brain Surgery. It is submitted that Sri. Rajesh Dugar, FCA was hospitalized during the relevant period and after his recovery from critical brain surgery, he prepared and filed the appeal before the Tribunal which resulted in a delay. Keeping in view the reasons given by the assessee in the application, we satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. We accordingly condone the said delay.

As regards the action of Ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order by treating the same as barred by limitation refusing to condone the delay of 07 days, it is observed that an application was filed by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) seeking condonation of the said delay of 07 days on the following grounds:-

Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay on the ground that the explanation offered by the assessee for the said delay was vague and evasive and did not constitute sufficient cause. We are unable to subscribe to this view taken by Ld.CIT(A). It is a well-settled position of law that the expression “sufficient cause” is required to be construed liberally in order to advance the cause of justice. In the present case, there was a delay of 07 days only on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and keeping in view the reasons given by the assessee for the said delay in the application for condonation, we are of the view that there was a sufficient cause for the said delay on the part of the assessee in filing its appeal before Ld.CIT(A). We therefore condone the said delay and remit the matter back to Ld.CIT(A) for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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