Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) for AY 2021-22, which had dismissed the appeal for not condoning a delay of 192 days. The assessee's AR submitted that the delay was due to relocation from Bangalore to Gurgaon and other disturbances, which prevented timely filing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient and, in the interest of justice and following the Apex Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals).
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was to be condoned due to sufficient reasons, and if so, whether the appeal should be remitted back for fresh consideration on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the ex-parte order dated 28.03.2024 of the CIT(Appeals)-15, Bangalore for the AY 2021- 22 for not condoning the delay of 192 days. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that because of relocation of the assessee from Bangalore to Gurgaon, Haryana and inexorable reasons the appeal could not be filed within time and application for condonation of delay was filed before CIT(Appeals) which was not entertained. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant has accepted the impugned addition and has paid taxes and only filed appeal after initiation of penalty proceedings dated 22.06.2023 and therefore he dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into merits of the case. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
The ld. AR submitted that assessee had sufficient reason for relocation from Bangalore to Gurgaon Haryana and assessee was disturbed for concentrating its business activities and other proceedings, therefore assessee had sufficient reason for not filling appeal in time to which the CIT(Appeals) ought to have accepted and decided the issue on merits. The ld. AR requested that if a chance is given to the assessee, she undertook to respond to the notices and substantiate the case of the assessee with evidence before the lower authorities.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) and objected to sending back the matter to lower authorities.
4. Considering the rival submissions we note that the reasons for condoning the delay submitted before the CIT(A) was not accepted by him. It is observed that there are sufficient reasons for the delay and on the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, 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, delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) is condoned. Accordingly we remit the case back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits and decision as per law. 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 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.