What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay was due to the Chartered Accountant's negligence, not the assessee's. The object of the Income Tax Act is to assess taxable income, and thus the delay should be condoned.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was rejected due to a 30-day delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the Chartered Accountant's preoccupation with tax audit work.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) due to the Chartered Accountant's negligence can be condoned to allow the assessee to argue the case on merit.

Shri C. Abdul Rahman & Co. vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

For Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, JCIT

Hearing: 15.12.2016Pronounced: 27.12.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Chennai, dated 18.08.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

2. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal.

According to the Ld. counsel, the Chartered Accountant to whom the appeal was entrusted, was pre-occupied in tax audit work, therefore, could not file the same. Merely because of the negligence on the part of the Chartered Accountant, the assessee should not be penalized. Therefore, the Ld.counsel submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to argue the case before the CIT(Appeals).

We have heard Shri Murali Mohan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. According to the Ld. D.R., the pre-occupation of Chartered Accountant either in preparing tax audit report or otherwise cannot be a reason for condoning the delay. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The delay of 30 days was due to the failure of Chartered Accountant to file the appeal. The Chartered Accountant claims that due to tax audit report, he could not file the same. Whatever may be the reasons, there was no negligence on the part of the assessee. The assessee was prompt enough in contacting the Chartered Accountant and it instructed him to file the appeal. If at all there was any delay and negligence, it was on the part of the Chartered Accountant and not on the part of the assessee. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, negligence of Chartered Accountant cannot be a reason to penalize the assessee.

Moreover, the object of proceedings before the Income-tax Act is to assess the taxable income and levy of tax thereon. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the delay of 30 days has to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 30 days is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee stands restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is 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.

Order pronounced on 27th December, 2016 at Chennai.

SHRI C. ABDUL RAHMAN & CO.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments