Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an intimation order dated 13.05.2019, which was delayed by 1638 days. The assessee had initially raised grievances on the income tax portal, believing they would be resolved. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay, rejecting the condonation application.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the statutory period for appeal is 30 days, Section 249(3) allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Tribunal found the assessee's belief that portal grievances would be resolved to be bonafide, leading to the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 1638 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the assessee's bonafide belief that its grievances raised through the income tax portal would be resolved.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 80P(2)(d), 154, 249(2), 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘H(SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed in Appeal no. ADDL/JCIT (A) PATNA/10001/2017–18 by the Ld. Commissioner of 2 /MUM/2024 Elite Residency Co–operative Housing Society Limited Income–tax(Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2018-19, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the same.
At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has, apart from the submissions related to the merits, submitted that the assessee received intimation order dated 13.05.2019 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 13.05.2019 for the A.Y. 2018–19. The assessee raised his grievance against the said order on the Income Tax portal on 11.06.2019, in respect of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thereafter on 06.07.2019, 11.02.2020, 28.07.2021, 27.12.2022. The assessee continued raising its grievances. Assessee received response on 01.08.2023 that its grievances being beyond the scope of rectification u/s. 154 of the Act was rejected. The appeal before learned CIT(A) could not be filed within the statutory period. The delay was caused by due to 3 ITA no. 2868 /MUM/2024 Elite Residency Co–operative Housing Society Limited assessee’s bonafide belief that grievances raised electronically shall be resolved. Prayed to set aside impugned order and provide opportunity of hearing.
Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
We have heard learned representatives for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) on 07.12.2023 against the rectification order dated 13.05.2019 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The first appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer on condonation of delay 1638 days in filing the first appeal before learned CIT(A).
We notice that the statutory period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 1638 days.
4 /MUM/2024 Elite Residency Co–operative Housing Society Limited 7. We find that the assessee, submitted its response against the said outstanding demand on the income tax portal on 11.06.2019 & continued pursuing the same till it received the rejection of his prayer for rectification on 01.08.2023. It appears that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that his grievances raised through the income tax portal shall be resolved in due course of time. This expectation of assessee caused such a huge delay in filing first appeal.
It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally.
The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of 5 ITA no. 2868 /MUM/2024 Elite Residency Co–operative Housing Society Limited the explanation stated hereinabove, we, deem it just and proper to condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellant authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced in open court today on 08.08.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 08/08/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.