N.BALADANDAYUDAM,ERODE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3263/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 February 2017AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that advanced age constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a retired bank employee, filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 81 days. The assessee attributed the delay to old age and difficulty in managing the filing process.

What were the issues?

Whether advanced age can be considered a reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(Appeals).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

Hearing: 03.02.2017Pronounced: 03.02.2017

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी िड.एस. सु�दर �सह, लेखा सद�य केसम� BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3263,3264 & 3265/Mds/2016 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13 And S.P.Nos.23, 24 & 25/Mds/2017 Shri N. Baladandayudam, The Income Tax Officer, 5/E-3, Hamsaveni Layout, v. Non-Corporate Ward 5(2), Goundampalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641036. PAN : AAOPB8764E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.02.2017 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

All the three appeals of the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2010-11 to 2012-13. Since common issue arises for consideration in all the appeals, we heard the same together and dispose off the same by this common order.

2.

The appeals of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) on the ground that there was no reason for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Admittedly, there was a delay of 81 days in filing the appeal. Shri. S. Sridhar, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a retired bank employee and he has no other source of income. Due to old age, the assessee could not file the appeal in time. The assessee engaged in purchase and sale of shares. Due to advanced age, according to the Ld. counsel the assessee could not file the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) within the period of limitation. Therefore, there was a delay of 81 days.

3.

On the contrary, Shri Shiva Srinivas, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there was a delay of 81 days in filing the appeal. The assessee could not explain satisfactorily the reasons for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee and refused to condone the delay.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was a delay of 81 days in filing the appeals. The assessee is a retired bank employee which is not in dispute. In the advanced age, the assessee is engaged in purchase and sale of shares. The reason for not filing the appeal in time is advanced age. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the proceeding before the Income Tax Officer is to quantify the correct taxable income and levy tax thereon provided the same is authorized by law. In the case before us, the assessee claims that due to old age, he could not file the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) in time. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal due to advanced age, there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The assessee is not going to gain anything in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Moreover, the tax liability has to be quantified provided the same is authorized by law.

Therefore, nothing wrong in examining the tax liability of the assessee on merit by the CIT (Appeals). This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessee would definitely promote the cause of justice. Giving one more opportunity may not in any way prejudice the interest of the Revenue. In this factual situation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal before the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 81 days is condoned and all the three appeals of the assessee are restored on the file of the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) is hereby directed to dispose off all the appeals on merit after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Consequently, all the three stay petitions become infructuous, therefore dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd February, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →