2018 (5) TMI 2074 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - appeals filed before the CIT(A) were time barred by 1099 days and 906 days - HELD THAT - no doubt there is some negligence at the end of the assessee for conducting his income tax proceedings. There is no material before us to ascertain whether the assessee has appeared before the AO on 14.11.2014. Similarly there is nothing to doubt that the assessment order might have not been served upon father of the assessee. Original acknowledge receipt has not been placed on the record. However considering the case of an individual upon whom tax liability of 22, 72, 460/- has been fastened by virtue of an ex parte order which has been further compounded by imposition of penalty of 7, 40, 871/- we are of the view that punishment in the shape of tax liability is far disproportionate with the alleged negligence. The possibility of illness of his father could not be ruled out. His house was attached and he has to approach Hon ble High Court by way of writ petition Making appeals time barred the assessee would not achieve anything. The tax liability would be confirmed and it could be recovered. Therefore it cannot be alleged that the assessee has adopted this modus operandi as a strategy. It might be a bona fide negligence. We condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Considering the alleged negligence in conducting the proceedings before the ld.Revenue authorities below we impose a cost of 2, 500/- upon the assessee on each appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of ad-interim stay of outstanding demand.
2. Time-barred appeals before CIT(A).
3. Explanation for delay in filing appeals.
4. Condonation of delay by the Tribunal.
5. Imposition of costs for negligence in conducting proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Ad-interim Stay of Outstanding Demand:
The assessee filed two stay applications seeking ad-interim stay of outstanding demand amounting to ?9,73,142/- and ?5,92,697/- for the assessment year 2007-08. The total tax demand determined by the AO was ?22,72,460/-, which included interest of ?7,75,871/-. Additionally, a penalty of ?7,40,871/- was imposed under section 271(1)(c). The assessee had already paid ?12,99,318/- towards the quantum addition and ?1,48,174/- towards the penalty. The Tribunal decided to hear the appeals on the merits instead of the stay applications.

2. Time-barred Appeals Before CIT(A):
The assessment and penalty orders were ex parte, and the assessee’s appeals were dismissed by CIT(A) due to being time-barred by 1099 days for the assessment order and 906 days for the penalty order. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay, citing his father's severe health issues and memory loss as reasons for not being informed about the orders.

3. Explanation for Delay in Filing Appeals:
The assessee's affidavit detailed his father's health problems, including multiple brain strokes and hospitalization, which led to memory loss. The affidavit also mentioned that the assessee was unaware of the assessment and penalty orders until the Income Tax Department initiated recovery actions, including attaching the assessee's and his mother's properties. The High Court lifted the attachment and ordered the consideration of the delay in filing the appeals.

4. Condonation of Delay by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal referred to the principle that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the reasons provided by the assessee, although indicating some negligence, did not appear to be mala fide or part of a dilatory strategy. The Tribunal emphasized that the punishment in the form of tax liability was disproportionate to the alleged negligence and that the possibility of the father's illness could not be ruled out. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay, stating that making the appeals time-barred would not benefit the assessee.

5. Imposition of Costs for Negligence in Conducting Proceedings:
While condoning the delay, the Tribunal imposed a cost of ?2,500/- on the assessee for each appeal due to the negligence in conducting the proceedings before the Revenue authorities. The Tribunal remitted the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and dismissed the stay petitions as redundant. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned, and the cases were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the imposition of costs on the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach in interpreting "sufficient cause" and highlighted the need to balance substantial justice with technical considerations.