Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC with a delay of 116 days. The assessment order was dated 26.03.2022 and received on 27.03.2022, while the appeal was filed on 23.08.2022. The assessee's representative cited the accountant's illness and subsequent departure from the job as reasons for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal observed that while the reasons for the delay were not supported by documentary evidence, considering the short delay of 116 days, it was inclined to condone the delay. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC should be condoned.
Sections Cited
143(3), 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065644230(1) dated 14.06.2024. The assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle
At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to the first issue raised by way of Ground Nos.2 to 4 regarding non- condonation of delay by CIT(A)-NFAC. He referred to the following grounds:- Non-Condonation of Delay by CIT(A):
2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to condone the delay placing reliance on a totally different order.
3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Form 35 specifically seeks the reasons for condonation of delay and the same has been duly prepared.
4. The Learned CIT(A) failed to examine the matter on merits on a short delay or dispose of the reason provided.
3. The ld.AR for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A)- NFAC and stated the facts that the assessment order is dated 26.03.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, which claimed to have been received on 27.03.2022. But the appeal was filed before CIT(A) on 23.08.2022 thereby there is a delay of 116 days. The ld.AR, when query was raised by the Bench, stated that the accountant of the assessee was unwell and subsequently, he left the job and the details were not furnished to the tax consultant of the assessee by the accountant. When this fact was brought to the notice of tax consultant by the assessee, the appeal was filed accordingly with a delay of 116 days. In term of the above, the ld.AR stated that this is a reasonable cause and delay is also for 116 days. In reply, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the cause deliberated by the ld.AR does not seem to be supported by any evidence and also it is a make believe story and hence, it should not be accepted.
After hearing rival contentions and going through the fact that the delay is of 116 days and the assessee claims that the Accountant was unwell and subsequently, he left the job and assessee was not aware of any assessment order passed. It seems that these are not supported by any documentary evidence but going through the smallness of delay of 116 days and the reason stated, we are inclined to condone the delay before the CIT(A)-NFAC with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras by the assessee within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee will pay this cost and produce the receipt before the CIT(A). In term of the above, the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 21stAugust, 2024 at Chennai.