Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -5, Chennai, dated 15.02.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16.
The Stay Petition was posted today for hearing. When the Stay Petition was taken up for hearing, both the representatives of the assessee and the Revenue submitted that the CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before him and dismissed the appeal. Since the issue of condonation of delay alone arises for consideration, by consent of both the parties, the appeal of the assessee itself is taken up for hearing.
We heard Shri Anandd Babunath, the Ld. representative for the assessee and Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee could not produce any material in support of his medical treatment. In the absence of any evidence, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay.
On the contrary, Shri Anandd Babunath, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that in fact the assessee was taking treatment. The delay of 64 days was beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have entertained the appeal and disposed of the appeal on merit. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, the proceeding before the CIT(Appeals) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. representative, the object of income-tax proceeding is to compute the correct taxable income. The Revenue cannot take a single pie of the assessee unless it is authorized by law. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay of 64 days and disposed of the appeal on merit.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee claims that he was taking medical treatment, therefore, he could not file the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) within the prescribed time.
The assessee is an individual. Therefore, we have no reason to doubt that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed time due to medical treatment.
Moreover, condoning the delay of 64 days may not prejudice the interests of Revenue in any way. As rightly submitted by the Ld. representative for the assessee, the very object of the Income-tax Act is to compute the taxable income and levy tax thereon. The Revenue cannot take even a single pie of the assessee unless it is authorized by law. Therefore, condoning the delay of 64 days would definitely promote the cause of justice. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that condoning the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and allowing the assessee to argue the case on merit would definitely repose confidence on judicial system. Moreover, technicalities cannot stand in the way of doing substantial justice. In order to do substantial justice between the parties, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the delay of 64 days needs to be condoned. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Now the appeal is restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to dispose of the appeal on merit after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Since the appeal itself is taken up and disposed of, the Stay Petition becomes infructuous.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous.