9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal before the CIT (A) u/s 13.34% profit estimation for the assessment year 2005-06.
Delay in filing appeal: The appellant, represented by Shri A.V.Raghuram, argued that the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee. Citing a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was contended that when a person has a good case on merits, technical plea of limitation should not deprive them of their just due. The delay was attributed to a misunderstanding regarding the need to file an appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 after offering additional income for 2006-07. Department's stance: On the contrary, the learned departmental representative, Shri H.Phani Raju, contended that the assessee had no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Referring to a decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, it was argued that negligence on the part of the assessee cannot be condoned for the delay. The department suggested that if there was a reasonable cause for the delay, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT (A) for consideration on merits. Judgment: The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the delay was unintentional as the assessee was under the impression that no appeal was needed for the assessment year 2005-06 after offering additional income for 2006-07. Drawing parallels with a case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where delay was condoned due to a similar misunderstanding, the Tribunal concluded that the delay of 355 days should be condoned. The judgment emphasized that when an assessee has a good case on merits, technical limitations should not hinder justice. The order of the CIT (A) was set aside, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, directing the CIT (A) to consider the appeal on merits. Result: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 18-12-09.
|
