Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH B, BANGALORE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'B', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri. N. Sudesh Kumar, No.38/2, 2nd cross, Nagappa Block, Srirampuram, Bengaluru 560 021 .. Appellant PAN : ARVPS1637B v. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 6(4), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA Revenue by : Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT Heard on : 23.06.2016 Pronounced on : 15.07.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
In this appeal filed by assessee it has altogether raised five grounds. Grievance raised by assessee in its ground.2 is reproduced hereunder :
2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that no valid or acceptable reason for ITA.873/Bang/2016 Page - 2 condoning the delay in filing the appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case.
CIT (A) had not condoned the delay of 112 days in filing the appeal. As per the CIT (A) there was no valid or acceptable reason for condoning the delay.
Ld. AR submitted that assessee was an individual and was dependent on his accountant who was handling the tax affairs. As per the Ld. AR, the Chartered Accountant with whom the assessee had interacted had not informed the assessee as to what was to be done on the assessment passed by the AO. As per the Ld. AR assessee had later incidentally met another CA and it was at this stage he became aware that an appeal was to be filed. By that time, there was a delay of 112 days and the CIT (A) unjustly dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
Per contra, Ld. DR supported the order of CIT (A).
I have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. What the assessee had stated before the CIT (A) for condoning the appeal is reproduced hereunder :
ITA.873/Bang/2016 Page - 3
It is trite law that when technical consideration and merit are pitted against each other, latter should have a upper hand. Assessee was an individual. There is nothing on record to show what was stated by him before the CIT (A) was incorrect. Assessee had stated that the delay was beyond his control. I am of the opinion that CIT (A) was not justified in ITA.873/Bang/2016 Page - 4 not condoning the delay. I therefore direct condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before CIT (A) and remit it back to his file for disposal on merits in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th day of July, 2016.