HARIPRIYA THANGA MAALIKAI,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

Shri Sasikumar, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Respondent and None represented on behalf of the Appellant.

Adjournment letter has been filed on behalf of the assessee stating that the Counsel is out of station. However, as the issues in this appeal are quite small and as the facts required to decide the appeal are available on the record, the adjournment application filed by the assessee stands rejected and the appeal disposed off.

In the Grounds of the assessee’s appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay of 176 days in filing of the appeal. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the appeal filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed as the Ld.CIT(A) has rejected the condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the petition for condonation has been drafted in haphazard manner. He vehemently supported the Order of the Ld.CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions. A perusal of the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) and also statement of facts filed before the Ld.CIT(A) clearly show that the Appellant was under bona fide belief that one appeal was required to be filed against both the assessment and penalty. It is only on getting advice from the representative of the assessee that he has filed two separate appeals. This bona fide belief of the assessee has not been shown to be wrong. Further, when technicality is pitted against substantial justice, technicality must stand down and let substantial justice prevail. In view of this, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the ITA No.663/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:

appeal by the assessee of 176 days before the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. In the circumstances, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) stands condoned and the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

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