Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 62 days, citing the severe acute lumbar pain of their Chartered Accountant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee also filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 53 days, which was condoned by the tribunal.
Held
The ITAT held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) constituted a reasonable cause. The tribunal relied on several judicial pronouncements to condone the delay of 62 days.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 246A of the Act, 40(a)(ia) of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHUR
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 30.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15.
There is a delay of 53 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a condonation application along with supporting affidavit of the partner of the assessee firm. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing of this appeal and we are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we
ITA No.1015/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4
condone the delay of 53 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal under section 246A of the Act. The reason stated by the assessee for not filing the appeal in time before the CIT(A) was that the concerned Chartered Accountant who was familiar with the assessee’s case was bed ridden with acute lumbar pain in the back and was suggested for further orthopedic consultation. It is submitted that a medical certificate was also furnished to the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) without taking note of the same, had erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 62 days. It was stated that the issue on merits is in favour of the assessee and is concerning the disallowance of Rs.14,26,882/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
The learned DR supported the Orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed under section 246A of the Act with a delay of 62 days. The reasons stated for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was that the concerned Chartered Accountant Shri. S. N. Kulkarni was suffering from severe acute lumbar pain. Assessee at page 15 of the Appeal Memo had enclosed a medical certificate of Vivekanand General Hospital (medical certificate dated 20.01.2017). The medical certificate clearly advised the concerned Chartered Accountant who was suffering from acute back ache to take medical rest and further consultation with orthopedic surgeon. On the facts of the instant case, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause for belated filing of appeal of 62 days under section 246A of the Act. Accordingly, the delay of 62 days in
ITA No.1015/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4
filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. In taking the above view, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements:
Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471 Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others reported in 118 ITR 507 Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank Et Others reported in [2009] 9 SCC 733 Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu EC Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao Et Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited reported in [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC].
Since we have condoned the delay of 62 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A), the issue on merits has to be necessarily considered by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of additions / disallowance made in the Assessment Order. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 02.07.2024. /NS/*
ITA No.1015/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4
Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.