2016 (3) TMI 1405 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - eligible reasons of delay - delay of 668 days on the part of the assessee in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal - delay of 533 days in filing its appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) - HELD THAT - Assessee has not got any benefit by filing its appeal late before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal. There is also nothing to show that such delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafide. There is also nothing to show that the assessee has resorted to dilatory tactics. Keeping in view all these facts of the case and the guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs.- Mst. Katiji Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT and by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs.- CEGAT Others 2002 (5) TMI 885 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT the delay on the part of the assessee in filing his appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal is required to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice as the same was resulted due to sufficient cause. Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay of 668 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Delay of 533 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
4. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2008-09, where the appeal was dismissed due to being barred by limitation after a delay of 668 days in filing. The Tribunal needed to consider and decide on the condonation of two delays: one in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the other in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The assessee provided reasons for the delay of 668 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, citing a change in management, ignorance regarding tribunal fees, and unintentional delay. The Tribunal referred to guidelines set by the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court regarding condonation of delay, emphasizing substantial justice and the absence of deliberate delay or malafide intentions. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice but imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee as compensation to the revenue.

3. Regarding the delay of 533 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee presented reasons such as a change in management and lack of awareness about the appeal not being filed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not find the reasons sufficient, but the Tribunal, following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court, decided to condone the delay due to the absence of deliberate delay or malafide intentions. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee as compensation to the revenue.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice and the need to balance technical considerations with the cause of justice. The decision to condone the delays was based on the absence of deliberate delay or malafide intentions by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for disposal on merit, with the instruction to not seek further adjournments and cooperate fully for an expeditious resolution of the appeal.