2016 (8) TMI 1501 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay dismissed - appellant claimed that the delay was due to a wrong advice tendered by their authorized representative the affidavit of the authorized representative was not filed - HELD THAT - Tribunal failed to see that in applications for condonation of delay reliance can be placed upon the affidavit of advocates for the parties. This is probably the reason why the assessee did not file the affidavit of the advocate. Therefore we are of the considered view that the application for condonation of the delay was dismissed by the Tribunal on a ground that it is not available. Hence the order requires to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed the order is set aside the condone delay petition is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to number the appeal and take up for disposal in course of time.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing a statutory appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the dismissal of their application for condonation of a 53-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The main question of law raised was whether the Tribunal's findings were perverse or not. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay was due to wrong advice from their authorized representative, although the representative's affidavit was not filed. The High Court noted that in applications for condonation of delay, reliance can be placed on the affidavit of advocates for the parties. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the condonation petition solely on the absence of the authorized representative's affidavit. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowed the appeal, granted the condonation of delay, and directed the Tribunal to number the appeal for disposal.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors in applications for condonation of delay. It clarified that reliance on the affidavit of advocates is permissible in such cases, and the absence of the authorized representative's affidavit alone should not be a ground for dismissal. The Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order and allow the appeal demonstrates a fair and just approach towards addressing procedural issues in tax matters.