MAAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SHIMOGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1966/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 November 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay attributable to the COVID period and also the remaining delay of 97 days due to the Managing Partner being a Senior Citizen. The case was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 26 months. The assessee contended that a major part of the delay was due to the COVID period and the ill health of the Managing Partner, who is a Senior Citizen. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condonable. Whether the CIT(A) should adjudicate the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(4),Section 29A,Section 12A,Section 138

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 134 Taxmann.com 307
    134 Taxmann.com 307 · 2022 · SC
    53 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 21.11.2024

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT (A) -2, Ahmedabad dated 16/08/2024 in for the assessment year 2017- 18.

2.

At the outset, we note that there was delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for 26 months, which was significant enough. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable.

3.

The ld. AR before us filed a synopsis running from pages 1 to 10 and contended that substantial delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is attributable to COVID period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022. As such, the effective delay is only of 97 days. Furthermore, the ld. AR submitted that the delay of 97 days is on account of the ill health of the Managing Partner who is Sr. Citizen. As such, the ld. AR before us prayed to direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit as per the provisions of law.

4.

On the other hand, the ld. DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the ld. AR for the assessee. However, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Indeed, the delay is of 26 months in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) but major part of the delay leaving 97 days was attributable to the COVID period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC) has observed as under: 8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No. 665 of 2021 with the following directions: - I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10- 2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15-3-2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 3-10-2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days .

from 3-10-2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 3-10-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

5.1 In view of the above, we hold that the delay attributable to the COVID period deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we direct so.

5.2 Regarding remaining period of the delay of 97 days, we note that Managing Partner was Sr. Citizen and, therefore, we are of view that such delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). As the issue has not been decided by the ld. CIT(A) on merit, we set aside the same to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 23(4)

All 92 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →