Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is engaged in the poultry business and filed their return of income declaring Rs. 15,01,73,770/-. The assessment was centralized, and a notice u/s. 153A was issued. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs for suppressed business income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 27.01.2023, which was delayed from the due date of 28.10.2021.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), considering the assessee's ill health due to COVID-19 and hospitalization, as well as the lack of timely information from their IT department employee. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal condoned the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
153A, 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the first appellate authority did not condone the delay of 242 days excluding the COVID period in filing the appeal.
It is submitted that the issue contested by the assessee was not considered on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the poultry business and the sales of breeder parent birds, broiler birds, hatching eggs and had undertaken in cash mode at breeding farms, hatcheries and other integration units. The assessee had filed return of income for year under consideration on 23.09.2017 which was subsequently revised on 17.08.2018 declaring total income at Rs.15,01,73,770/-. The case of the assessee was centralized and notice u/s. 153A was issued on 03.05.2021. The return of income was filed by the assessee as per the original return declared.
The Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings made addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs as suppressed business income. Against the assessment order, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 27.01.2023 whereas the due date to file the appeal was 28.10.2021.
The assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 provided extension of limitation during the COVID pandemic period, wherein direction
Page 3 of 15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022.
It is submitted that, the Ld.CIT(A) after noting the submissions of the assessee, computed the total delay excluding the COVID period at 242 days. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A), referring to various decisions held the delay to be extraordinary and dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.
The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee is a senior citizen and was not keeping well as he was detected with COVID positive on 14.05.2022. The document in support of this has been furnished at page 60 of the paper book before this Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee was hospitalized for which the hospital report is also placed at page 65 of the paper book. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the employee incharge of the income tax matters did not inform the assessee under such circumstances regarding the assessment order having uploaded on the website. Subsequently as soon as the assessee came to know, necessary steps were taken to file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
8.1 The Ld.AR thus prayed for the appeal to be remanded in the interest of justice to the Ld.CIT(A) for considering the issue on merits.
8.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though opposed for the condonation of delay, could not controvert the submissions of the assessee and the documents of the hospital referred to and relied upon hereinabove. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
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.
9.1 It is also noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee in not filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) within time. Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal.
9.2 Considering the circumstances under which the delay was caused in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) we are of the opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause.
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 Page 5 of 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. 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.”
Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) stands condoned.
Accordingly we are of the considered opinion that the issues raised by the assessee deserves to be addressed on merits. We
Page 6 of Ld.CIT(A) by condoning the delay with the direction to pass a detailed order on merits.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2024.