SRI. SRUSTI ASSCIATES ,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a delay of 68 days. The assessee in Form 35 has explained reasons for the delay stating that assessment order is passed on 27.03.2023 hence appeal should have been filed within 30 days i.e., on or before 26.04.2022. As the business is almost discontinued and court cases are pending, it took some time to coordinate between the records and the CA and compiling the data, hence there is delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. As the delay caused is unintentional and due to reasons beyond control, it is prayed that delay may be condoned in the interest of justice and equity. The ld. FAA on going through the reasons submitted by the assessee, he observed that there was no sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days and delay was not condoned and he relied on the judgment quoted in his order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(Appeals) explaining the reasons brought out in Form 35 before the FAA for condonation of delay. The ld. AR reiterated para 5 of the Statement of Facts. He also submitted that information was submitted from time to time during the reassessment proceedings which includes computation of income, financial statements, FIR copy along with photograph registering case involving appellant and its landlord indicating the fact that premises is locked by landlord, extract of bank indicating that there are cash withdrawals of Rs.89,05,392, bank book, cash book containing narration, bank statement, partnership deed (new and old), GST return for FY 2017-18. The ld. AR further submitted that business premises is locked and the same cannot be opened without court’s permission. In view of this, the assessee could not produce entire documents to the satisfaction of the AO and there was delay in filing appeal before the FAA. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has good case on merits and each and every debit and credit entry was explained to AO and requested that the delay may be condoned.

The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material on record in the light of order of authorities below, it is clear that assessee did not file appeal before the FAA within the period of 30 days prescribed under the Act from the date of receipt of the assessment order. The assessee has disclosed the reasons in Form 35 at sl.no.15 quoted supra. On going through the above reasons, the written submissions along with documentary evidence at page 109 to 112 of PB, proof that FIR has been registered and documents produced during the course of first appellate proceedings, we note that assessee has sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly we note that assessee has sufficient cause for the delay and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the FAA and remit back the issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision as per law. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.