Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Primary Agricultural Society, filed an appeal against an order by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2017-18. The appeal was delayed by 14 days before the tribunal and by 1217 days before the CIT(A). The delay was attributed to the society's secretary being preoccupied with finalizing the statutory audit and other administrative reasons, with a portion of the delay occurring during the Covid-19 period.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal before it, finding the assessee's justification adequate. However, it noted the significant delay before the CIT(A) and the assessee's default in statutory timelines. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing readjudication on merits, but imposed costs of Rs. 5000 on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal should be condoned, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after imposing costs.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062027990(1) dated 05.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 05.03.2024 passed by CIT(A).
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 14 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a Primary Agricultural Society and that the secretary of the society was preoccupied with the finalization of its statutory audit causing the impugned delay. It was submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor wanton. The assesse accordingly requested that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be adjudicated. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR submitted that the assesse is a habitual defaulter and costs may be imposed. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.
3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 23.12.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of just 1217 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was submitted that of the total 1217 days 716 days delay came within the purview of Covid-19.
Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assesse had tried to justify the delay also on account of preoccupation with statutory audit, absence of qualified accountant etc. It was argued that the CIT(A) has not given any decision on the merits of the case. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR on the other hand is stated that assesse is habitual defaulter and does not deserves any leniency.
4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. Though we find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time, it is noted that the assesse has defaulted with statutory timelines both before the Ld. First Appellate Authority as well as this Tribunal. The assesse therefore cannot go scott free and deserves imposition of costs. We therefore impose a costs of Rs. 5000/- upon the assesse to be deposited to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority of Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days on receipt of this order and receipt thereof would be shown to the Ld. First Appellate Authority.
5.0 Coming to the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority, we have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 1217 days in filing of appeal in this case and for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non- compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.