What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay on the part of the assessee as the auditor was busy with tax audit finalization and there was no negligence on the assessee's part. The delay of 6 days was condoned.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was delayed by 6 days due to the auditor being busy with tax audit finalization. The assessee argued that this delay by the auditor should not penalize them and an opportunity to argue the case should be given.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) due to the auditor's preoccupation with tax audit finalization constitutes a reasonable cause for condonation.

R.Padamchand Jain vs DCIT | ITAT Chennai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 02.05.2017Pronounced: 31.05.2017

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. : 3274/Mds/2016 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri R. Padamchand Jain, The Deputy Commissioner of 6, ChandrappaMudali Street, v. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai-34. PAN: AAHPP0234G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai dated 04.10.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13.

According to Shri M.Karunakaran, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee there was a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the auditor was busy in finalization of tax audit. Therefore, even though the assessee engaged the chartered accountant to file the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), he could not do so. According to the Ld. counsel, merely because there was delay on the part of chartered accountant to file the appeal before CIT(Appeals), that cannot be a reason to penalize the assessee. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the auditor because he was buy in finalization of the tax audit. Hence an opportunity may be given to the assessee to argue the case before the CIT(Appeals).

We heard Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld.DR submitted that there was admittedly a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal before CIT(Appeals). The engagement of the auditor in finalization of tax audit may not be a reason to condone the delay. Therefore the CIT(Appeals) has rightly refused to condone the delay.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly there was a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal before CIT(Appeals). The reason for delay is that the auditor was busy in finalization of tax

3 audit. There was no negligence on the part of the assessee in prosecuting the appeal promptly. The assessee engaged the auditor and instructed him to prepare the appeal for filing the same before the CIT(Appeals). However, the auditor could not prepare the same, since he was busy in finalization of tax audit. Therefore this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) in time. Accordingly the delay of 6 days is condoned. Consequently, the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) is set aside. Now the appeal of the assessee stands restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to dispose the file on merit by giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced on 31st May, 2017 at Chennai.

R.PADAMCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments