SHARWAN LAL DUDHAWAL,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD NEEMKATHANA BOR AO CPC, NEEMKATHANA

5. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234 A B.C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.

6. The appellate prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” Submission of Authorised Representative for Assessee: 2. The ld.AR for the assessee filed a written submission along with paper book containing 167 pages. Page no.161 to 167 of the said paper book is the copy of application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A).

Submission of ld.Departmental Representative for Revenue : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).

Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the ld.Addl.CIT(A) vide order dated 05.03.2024 for A.Y.2017-18 passed u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.

4.1 The ld.Addl.CIT(A) in paragraph-1 of the order has stated that appeal was instituted on 07.03.2022 against the order u/sec.143(1) dated 27.03.2021. In the concluding para, the ld.Addl.CIT(A) held that the appeal was delayed by 305 days. The relevant paragraph is reproduced here as under : “In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal for 305 days. Unless and until it demonstrated that there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within that prescribed period of 30 days, delay thereafter cannot be condoned. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s 249(3). Thus, this clearly is a case of laches and is directly the result of deliberate inaction on part of the appellant.

In view of above, the delay of days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellants failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s249(2) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted.”

4.2 In this case, on perusal of the record, it is observed that order u/sec.143(1) for A.Y.2017-18 is dated 27.03.2019. The appellant submitted that said order was received by appellant in April, 2019. As per the Affidavit of the appellant, appeal should have been filed against the order u/sec.143(1) before the ld.CIT(A) on or before 15.05.2019. However, the appeal has been filed on 07.03.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme court vide order dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 had extended the limitation date for all the appeal from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Therefore, in this case, the actual delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is from 15.05.2019 to 14.03.2020, thus, the delay is of 304 days. We have gone through the Affidavit of the assessee which was filed before the ld.CIT(A) along with condonation application. We find that there was sufficient cause for the said delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we set-aside the order of ld.Addl.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication by condoning the delay. The ld.CIT(A) shall decide the case on merits and shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.