KPSAL VITTAL SHRIMATHI SUNANDAMMA KALYANA MANTAPA, ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-1 , HUBLI
Facts
The appeals arise from orders dated 06.11.2023 and 07.11.2023 passed by CIT(A)-11, Delhi for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The assessee's representative submitted that there was a delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and also before this Tribunal. The delay was attributed to obstruction and non-cooperation from erstwhile committee members, leading to unavailability of income tax portal credentials and contact details.
Held
The Tribunal held that the length of the delay is not material, but the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing, and acceptable. Considering the ongoing litigation between the present and erstwhile committees and the civil court's order restraining the erstwhile committee members, the non-cooperation could not be considered a made-up situation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. to condone the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned on the grounds of obstruction and non-cooperation by erstwhile committee members, and whether the appeals should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
Section 51 of the Limitation Act, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. KPSAL Vittal Shrimathi Sunandamma Kalyana Mantapa, The Income Tax 708 Sri Officer Kanyakaparameshwari (Exemptions), Devastana Sangha, Ward – 1 , SKP Temp, Hubli. Vs. Davangere H.O, Davangere – 577 001. PAN: AAATK5522D APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate - Revenue by Standing Counsel for Department
Date of Hearing : 27-06-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27-06-2024
ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of order dated 06.11.2023 and 07.11.2023 passed by CIT(A)-11, Delhi for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay
Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024 in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal.
2.1 The Ld.AR placed before me following dates based on which the delay is computed.
2.2 To substantiate the delay before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted an affidavit dated 12.06.2024 that reads as under:
Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024
Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024
2.3 He submitted that due to the obstruction and non- cooperation from erstwhile committee members, the assessee could not file appeals before this Tribunal for the years under consideration causing delay of 67 and 68 days respectively.
Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024 He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned in the interest of justice to the assessee.
2.4 On the contrary, the Ld.DR opposed for the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has a casual approach as there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) also.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
It is a well settled principle that the length of the delay is not material, but the reasons adduced are to be properly pleaded, convincing and acceptable to substantiate the delay by way of an explanation that must be reasonable. In the present facts of the case, considering the litigation that has been filed by the present committee against the erstwhile committee, the non-cooperation and obstruction of the erstwhile committee members in sharing any details with the present committee cannot be considered to be a made up situation. There is no dispute from the orders from the Civil Court that there is a direction restraining the erstwhile committee members in conducting the day-to-day affairs of the assessee.
Reliance is placed 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:-
Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024 “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 : 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.”
Based on the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471, the delay caused in filing the present appeals deserves consideration. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee.
Page 7 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024 Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal stands condoned. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee stands admitted.
It is also noted that the assessee also did not substantiate the delay caused in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the appeals are remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file condonation petition before the Ld.CIT(A) along with necessary evidences. The Ld.CIT(A) shall consider the affidavit filed by the assessee and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2024.
Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 27th June, 2024. /MS /
Page 8 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore
