SUNBRIGHT DESIGNERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Chennai, dated 12.07.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2003-04.

The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals).

We have heard Shri G. Seetharaman, the Ld. representative for the assessee and Shri Murali Mohan, the Ld. Departmental Representative. The claim of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) was that the accountant, who received the copy of the order of the Assessing Officer, resigned the job, therefore, the assessee could not filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) within the period prescribed. The fact remains that the delay in filing the appeal was only 34 days. No doubt, the assessee is expected to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The explanation of the assessee is that the accountant, who received the order of the Assessing Officer, resigned the job, therefore, there was a delay. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Income-tax Act, being a special enactment for assessment of income, levy of tax on income and collection of tax, the Revenue authorities cannot recover any tax unless the same is authorized by law. Therefore, for every levy of tax, it has to be authorized by law.

Even otherwise, the delay was caused due to resignation of the accountant who said to have received the copy of the order of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) is condoned. Now the appeal of the assessee stands restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal on merit, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.