Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 188 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, explaining that it was due to a technical glitch in the Income Tax Portal and the pursuit of remedy through the grievance redressal mechanism. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee pursuing a remedy through the grievance redressal mechanism, which constitutes a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing judicial pronouncements on condoning delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was liable to be condoned.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 154, Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 246A, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bangalore – 560 032. Ward -6(3)(3), PAN : AARPG 2781 P Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. C. J. Yeswanthram, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 07.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R
Per George George K, Vice President :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of CIT(A) dated 22.07.2024 passed under section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21.
At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before him. The delay condonation application filed before the CIT(A) reads as follows:
The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
We find that the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is only as a result of the fact that the assessee was pursuing / seeking remedy through the grievance redressal mechanism on the bonafide belief that grievance redressal was the correct course of action. On the facts of the instant case, there is “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). In condoning the delay, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements : QT Vs. K.S.P. Shanmughavel Nadar reported in (1985) 153 ITR 596 Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471
Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the issue on merits needs to be examined by CIT(A). For the aforesaid purpose, the matter is restored to the files of the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.
SP No.58/Bang/2024
Since we have disposed off the Income Tax Appeal, the above stay petition is dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and SP is dismissed as infructuous.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.