Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 77 days in filing the appeal due to the impugned order not coming to the company's knowledge timely, as it was sent to an old email id and the assigned employee failed to check it. The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the delay, which was supported by a Supreme Court decision.
Held
The Bench condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's explanation and the supporting affidavit. It was noted that the appeal pertains to a penalty order, and the quantum addition appeal is pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Bench decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal based on the quantum appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.992/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 07-03-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 wherein the solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench noted that there is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal for which the Director company submitted an M/S. SHRI GARGI BUILDCON PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR application dated 16-08-2024 for condonation condonation praying therein that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was sent on the e-mail id: accounts@shreenatharcade.com and the responsibility to check and manage the same was assigned to Shri Neeraj Sharma, one of the employees of group, but he could not check the same timely as well as on income tax portal too. Thus the same could not come to the knowledge of the company. As and when it had come to the knowledge of this employee i.e. Shri Neeraj Sharma who informed the management of the company about this impugned order of the ld CIT(A). Thereafter the management approached the Counsel to prepare the appeal and submitted it on 22-07-2024 and thus the appeal got delayed. He submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the assessee or the counsel and submitted that the delay may be condoned for which he filed an affidavit. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem and fit proper in the case. 2.3 The Bench heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the affidavit of the assessee and found that there is a merit in the application of the assessee for condonaton of delay. Thus the delay is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji & Others (1987), 167 ITR 471.