9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1444 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of Delay - delay in filing of appeal about 4378 days - Settlement Commission procedings pending - HELD THAT - We find that the belief of the assessee for not filing the appeals before the Tribunal was that they were expecting that their cases will be taken by the Settlement Commission in all assessment years. According to the assessee they have harboured this belief on the advice of their Counsel whose opinion is available on the paper book. Moreover under the same set of facts the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT has already taken a view and has condoned the delay under the identical circumstances for A.Y. 2003-04 2001-02. 2017 (7) TMI 360 - ITAT AHMEDABAD Since the Co-ordinate Bench has already taken a view by condoning the delay therefore in order to maintain judicial consistency and judicial discipline we also deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of appeals accordingly we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. Since the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits rather dismissed the appeals on account of non-maintainability. In the light of above decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT we deem it appropriate to set-aside orders of the ld.CIT(A) on these appeals and restore all these to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication. Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay 2. Adjudication on Merits Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay: The primary issue in these appeals was the condonation of an inordinate delay of 4378 days in filing the appeals. The appellant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons, including the involvement of the group entities in settlement applications before the Income-tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) following a survey action on 11-03-2005. The appellant believed that filing appeals before the ITAT would result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings and costs, as advised by their legal representative. The appellant also filed writ petitions challenging the abatement orders passed due to amendments in section 245D(4) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2007, which led to further delays. The Tribunal noted that in identical facts, delays had been condoned in other group cases by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. The Tribunal emphasized that the expression "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Ramamurthy, which advocate a liberal approach towards condonation of delay to ensure justice. The Tribunal found that the appellant had acted on legal advice and had taken necessary steps to agitate the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The delay was attributed to unexpected events and not due to any inaction on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that there was a plausible explanation for the delay and condoned it, allowing the appeals to be decided on merits. 2. Adjudication on Merits: Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on the grounds of non-maintainability without adjudicating the issues on merits, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the orders of the CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. The Tribunal emphasized maintaining judicial consistency and discipline, referencing the Co-ordinate Bench's decision to condone delays in similar cases. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, condoning the delay and remanding the cases to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The order was pronounced in the open court on 06-12-2019.
|
