2016 (7) TMI 1510 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation - by mistake instead of the appeal being filed in the office of the CIT(A), it was filed on 8th February, 2008 (within the period of limitation) with the office of the Assessing Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - HELD THAT - As the appeal pertained to the CIT(A) and not its office, the Assessing Officer ought to have immediately returned the appeal which was filed in the office of the Assessing Officer. This would have enabled the appellant to take appropriate steps and file the appeal with the office of the CIT(A). The appellant should have taken care to ensure that the appeal is correctly filed with the office of the CIT(A). Although, we are satisfied that there was a mistake / error on the part of appellant in filing it with the wrong office, the appellant has not been able to explain the delay between 23rd March, 2010 to 12th May, 2011 i.e. the period when it addressed a communication to the CIT(A) for hearing of its appeal till the date it requested the AO to transfer the appeal to CIT(A). The explanation stated across the bar is that it was pursuing its appeal but no particulars are given. Therefore, although we set aside orders dated 4th September, 2013 of the Tribunal and 4th August, 2011 of the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh disposal in accordance with law, it is subject to the appellant paying all tax dues payable for the subject Assessment Year, if not already paid and additionally on payment of costs of ₹ 10,000/by a pay order drawn in the name of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax15, Mumbai within a period of four weeks from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2005-06.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the rejection of their appeal due to a delay in filing. The main issue revolved around whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant had mistakenly filed the appeal with the office of the Assessing Officer instead of the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The delay was discovered when the appellant sought a hearing for the pending appeal and realized the error. Despite the unintentional nature of the mistake, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal for condonation of delay, leading to a further appeal to the Tribunal.

The High Court noted that the appeal was prepared and filed in the correct proforma but was mistakenly submitted to the wrong office. The Assessing Officer accepted the appeal, although it should have been immediately returned or forwarded to the correct office. The Court emphasized that the delay was unintentional and that both the appellant and the department proceeded under the belief that the appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court rejected the analogy made in the impugned order with nature, stating that human interaction is subject to error, and the power to condone delay exists due to human fallibility.

While acknowledging the mistake made by the appellant, the Court also highlighted the lack of explanation for the delay between certain dates. Despite setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restoring the appeal for fresh disposal, the Court imposed conditions. The appellant was required to pay all tax dues for the Assessment Year, if not already paid, and an additional cost within a specified period. The Court concluded by disposing of the appeal with the mentioned terms, ensuring compliance with the conditions set forth.