Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH ‘C’, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI AK GARODIA&
-822/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years – 1986-87 – 1990-91) Smt. Shyamala Jairaj, No.24, Andree Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant PAN No. – CMJPS0014F. Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward – 7(2) (2), Bangalore. Respondent Appellant by : Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.A Respondent by : Shri A.R.V Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of Hearing : 13-3-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17 -3-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This bunch of 5 appeals are filed by the assessee which are directed against the combined order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 7, Bangalore dated 12/1/2016 for assessment years 1986-87 to 1990-91. 2. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.
3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
ITA Nos.818-822/B/16 2
At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld AR of the assessee that the appeals before us were filed late by 8 days and he submitted that delay may be condoned as per the application for condonation of delay submitted by the assessee along with affidavit.
ITA Nos.818-822/B/16 3
In the said application for the condonation of delay, it is submitted that due to advanced age and indifferent health, the assessee was not in a position to comprehend the contents of the order of the ld CIT(A) and, therefore, this small delay of 8 days in filing of appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned. Considering these facts, I condone the delay and admit these appeals.
In all the 5 years, the issue involved is common as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in not allowing the condonation of delay in filing the appeals before him. It was submitted by the dl AR of the assessee that application for condonation of delay were filed before the CIT(A) for condonation of the delay of 278 days and it was explained before the ld CIT(A) that the assessee had no knowledge of accounting aspects and tax laws and therefore, she was not advised that there are remedial option of filing the appeal. It was submitted that in view of these submissions, the ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and should have admitted the appeals and decided the appeals on merit in the interest of justice. He also submitted that the only request of the assessee before the tribunal is to condone the delay in filing of appeals before CIT (A) and then the matter may be restored back to the file of ld CIT(A) for giving a decision on merit.
The ld DR supported the order of ld CIT(A). He also submitted that even if the delay is condoned, some cost should be imposed on the assessee.
I have considered the rival submissions. In my considered opinion, the assessee explained the reasons for delay of 278 days in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A). As per the same, the assessee was having no knowledge that she can file appeal before the ld CIT(A).
ITA Nos.818-822/B/16 4 In the interest of justice, I feel it proper that the delay should be condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- being Rs.2,000/- for each year and matter should be decided by the ld CIT(A) on merit. Hence, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for giving decision on merit after condoning the delay of 278 days in filing the appeals before him after the assessee furnishes the evidence of this payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. Ld CIT(A) should decide these five appeals afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.
In the result, all five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2017.