2011 (7) TMI 954 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - - Appeal before CIT(A) - Held that the managing partner of the assessee is a not a person well versed in taxation laws who does not also have much formal education also I am inclined to direct the appellate authority to condone the delay on terms - Delay is condoned

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals under the Income Tax Act for the years 2003-04 to 2007-08 and 2002-03 to 2007-08.
2. Rejection of appeals by the appellate authority on the ground of delay and findings on merits.
3. Challenge by the petitioners against the rejection of appeals.
4. Consideration of the case by the appellate authority and arguments presented by the petitioners.
5. Decision on whether to condone the delay in filing the appeals.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a firm and its managing partner, filed appeals with petitions to condone a delay of 504 days in filing appeals against assessments for specific years under the Income Tax Act. The appellate authority rejected the appeals on grounds of delay and also entered findings on merits. The petitioners contended that the appellate authority did not consider the case correctly, alleging that concessions made by the authorized representative during assessment proceedings were not authorized by them and should not be binding. The standing counsel for the Income Tax Department opposed the prayers in the writ petitions.

Upon considering the rival contentions, the judge examined the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners. Despite the reasons provided not being elaborate or convincing enough, the judge noted that the managing partner lacked expertise in taxation laws and formal education. Consequently, the judge directed the appellate authority to condone the delay on terms. The impugned orders were quashed, and the appellate authority was instructed to condone the delay on the condition that the petitioners pay a total amount of Rs. 1 lakh as costs for both appeals or Rs. 50,000 each. The costs were to be paid within one month from the date of the order, and further proceedings in the appeals were to proceed according to a specific judgment.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with the direction to condone the delay in filing the appeals, subject to the payment of costs as specified, and further proceedings were to be conducted in accordance with the court's judgment.