2013 (12) TMI 844 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in fining an appeal before CIT(A) - Held that - It is true that the appellant s mother died on 23 December 2008 and the assessment order was passed on 21 December 2009 and therefore, there was considerable time gap between two events. Similarly the appeal was filed on 15 November 2010. Thus, there was considerable time gap. However, each person reacts differently to the shocks which life administers from time to time. There can be no uniform standard of reaction by all persons to the unfortunate events. However, in the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the applicant sought to put the blame on the consultant who is no longer alive. This was indeed unfair and the Tribunal appears to have been of view that he ought not to have blamed the consultant who passed away before the Tribunal heard the appeal. We agree with the above view of the Tribunal. In the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served if delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits by the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs as directed hereafter. This order is passed subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs.25,000/to the Victoria Memorial School for Blind at Mumbai within two weeks from today, the appeal shall be entertained by CIT(A) after the receipt issued by Victoria Memorial School for Blind is produced before the CIT(A). - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to dismissal of appeal on grounds of delay in filing before CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Grounds of Appeal: The appellant raised three questions of law challenging the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. These questions pertained to the correctness of the Tribunal's decision in confirming the CIT(A)'s order on the technical ground of limitation, the denial of substantial justice to the appellant, and the alleged perversity of the Tribunal's decision based on irrelevant considerations.

2. Background: The appellant had challenged the assessment order dated 21 December 2009 before the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. However, there was a delay of 278 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay and subsequent dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

3. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant failed to provide cogent reasons for condonation of delay and was negligent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order dated 11 September 2012, leading to the appellant's appeal before the High Court.

4. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the shock and mourning period following the death of the appellant's mother. The appellant emphasized that the reasons for delay were genuine and not fabricated, as they had significant financial implications, including additional tax liability and penalty.

5. High Court's Ruling: The High Court noted that while there was a considerable time gap between the events, individuals react differently to personal tragedies. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that blaming a deceased consultant for the delay was unfair. However, considering the peculiar circumstances, the Court held that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal should have taken a more liberal view and condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

6. Decision and Directions: Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the CIT(A), and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for hearing on merits. The appellant was directed to pay costs to a charitable institution within a specified timeframe for the appeal to be entertained by the CIT(A).

7. Conclusion: The High Court disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for a more compassionate approach in condoning delays caused by personal hardships. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering individual circumstances while upholding the principles of justice and fairness in tax appeals.