Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arises from an order by the NFAC, Delhi, concerning a 143(3) assessment and a penalty order under section 270A for AY 2018-19. There was a delay of 18 days in filing the quantum appeal and 3 days in filing the penalty appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause and no malafide intention. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the quantum appeal for non-furnishing of grounds of appeal, which consequently led to the penalty being confirmed. The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) for consideration on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals is to be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for consideration on merits.
Sections Cited
270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
Shri Manish Jeetmal Ambani, The Income Tax 3 M G Plaza, Officer, U N Lane, Ward – 2(2)(3), Chickpet, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 053. Vs. PAN: ATZPA3083H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate & Shri Tharun Kothari, CA Revenue by : Shri Tamil Selvam .S, Addl. CIT (DR)
Date of Hearing : 02-07-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19-07-2024
ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order passed by the NFAC, Delhi against the 143(3) assessment order and an order passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 27.02.2024 against the penalty order u/s. 270A of the act for A.Y. 2018-19.
Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the quantum order and delay of 3 days in filing the appeal against the penalty appeal, passed by the Ld.CIT(A) before this Tribunal.
The Ld.AR filed affidavit stating the reason for delay caused in filing the appeals before this Tribunal.
He submitted that, the appeal was drafted against the impugned orders by the Ld.AR and was forwarded to the Chartered Accountant. It is submitted that the Chartered Accountant was preoccupied with the certain outstation statutory audit of banks and returned to Bangalore in last week of April. Subsequently, the appeal memo was sent for assessee signature and upon receipt from the assessee, the appeals were immediately filed.
4.1 The Ld.AR thus submitted that in this process, the delay of 18 days and 3 days happened in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal.
The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following decisions of this Tribunal, wherein delay was condoned as there existed reasonable cause. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT & Another vs. ISRO Satellite Center in ITA No. 532 of 2008 by order dated 28.10.2011
Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Smt. Shakuntala Hegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2785/Bang/2004 by order dated 25.04.2006
The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar reported in (1987) 30 Taxmann 133 (Madras) and decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 288/Coch/2017 by order dated 25.06.2018.
He submitted that, there was a reasonable cause due to which the delay may not be attributed to the assessee and the appeals may be heard on merits.
On the contrary, the Ld.DR objected for the condonation of delay. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in quantum proceedings as the delay filed was defective. He submitted that, the assessee had not filed grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and also the assessee had not responded to various notices issued. As a consequence of dismissal of quantum appeal, the penalty levied u/s. 270A of the act was confirmed. He thus supported the orders passed by authorities below.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 10. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions.
10.1 It is also noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee in not filing the appeals before this Tribunal within time. Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal.
10.2 Considering the circumstances under which the delay was caused in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, we are of the opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause.
10.3 We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
Page 5 of 6 ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
10.4 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay of 18 days and 3 days caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal stands condoned.
On merits, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal as assessee did not furnish grounds of appeal along with Form 35, as the consequence of which the penalty was also confirmed. It is submitted that inadvertently, the assessee failed to furnish the grounds of appeal as the notices went unnoticed by the assessee. the mistake could not rectified. The Ld.AR humbly prayed for the appeal to be heard on merits as assessee has a good case.
At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal has been filed before this Tribunal and in the interest of justice, we remand
Page 6 of 6 ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 the quantum appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issues on merits. Consequentially, penalty order also deserves to be remanded together. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to furnish all relevant information / details in support of its claim. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th July, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated, the 19th July, 2024. /MS /
Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore