2019 (4) TMI 1970 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - sufficient cause of delay - delay of 1478 days 1543 days and 1505 days for the assessment years 2013-14 Q- 2 Q-3 and 2014-15 Q-1 respectively in filing appeals - HELD THAT - Assessee has filed an affidavit mainly stating that the intimation under section 200A of the Act appears to have been passed and intimated by e-mail whereas interest under section 234E of the Act towards late filing fee for delay in filing the quarterly returns were not communicated to them. It was further submission that the assessee was under bonafide belief that TDS returns filed for quarters were fully accepted by the Department. Besides above it was stated that the Chairman Shri S.P. Rajendran who was looking after income tax matters suddenly passed away on 06.03.2018 and the assessee had to reorganize the office In the instant case the assessee was not aware what to do and how to proceed further against the intimation passed by the DCIT CPC-TDS Ghaziabad since the Chairman of the assessee company suddenly passed away. Therefore after consulting higher officials income tax practioners/ Advocates the assessee preferred appeals with delay before the ld. CIT(A) - we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we set aside the common order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the appeals on merits after giving sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee.e Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and condonation of the delay.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, with the only common ground being the delay in filing the appeals. The appellant argued that the delay was not wilful or negligent, citing reasons such as the remote location of the assessee, lack of communication regarding late filing fees, and the sudden demise of the Chairman responsible for income tax matters. The appellant requested condonation of the delay and a chance to present the case on merits. The respondent, however, opposed condoning the delay, claiming insufficient reasons provided by the appellant.

Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged the remote location of the assessee, leading to delays in seeking legal opinion on appealing against the intimation communicated by the Centralized Processing Cell. The Tribunal found no negligence on the part of the assessee in the delay. Referring to the Limitation Act, the Tribunal emphasized the elastic nature of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, highlighting the need for a liberal approach to prevent substantive rights from being defeated due to delay. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal stressed the importance of advancing substantial justice and the discretion of the court in condoning delays based on acceptable explanations.

Considering the circumstances, including the sudden demise of the Chairman and the efforts made by the assessee to consult higher officials and practitioners before filing the appeals, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. The Tribunal set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and directed a fresh adjudication of the appeals on merits after providing sufficient hearing opportunities to the assessee. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeals was based on the lack of negligence on the part of the assessee, the remote location affecting timely legal consultations, and the efforts made to address the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of advancing substantial justice and adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay to ensure a fair adjudication of the appeals on merits.