2018 (7) TMI 2194 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 1099 days and 906 days - HELD THAT - As relying on 2018 (5) TMI 2074 - ITAT AHMEDABAD 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271F of the Income-tax Act.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Delay in filing appeals before the learned CIT(A) by 906 days.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Section 271F of the Income-tax Act
The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of ?5,000 under Section 271F of the Income-tax Act on the assessee for not filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08. Despite a notice issued under Section 148 on 25.03.2014 requiring the assessee to furnish the return within 30 days, the return was not submitted. Consequently, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 148, determining the total income at ?23,67,710.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act
The Assessing Officer issued three notices under Section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act, which remained uncomplied with by the assessee. As a result, a penalty of ?30,000 was imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act.

Issue 3: Delay in Filing Appeals Before the Learned CIT(A)
The appeals against the penalties imposed under Sections 271F and 271(1)(b) were filed after a delay of 906 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed these appeals as time-barred. The assessee's counsel contended that similar delays were condoned by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1040 & 1041/Ahd/2018, where delays of 1099 days and 906 days were condoned, and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and noted the explanation provided by the assessee in his affidavit, which highlighted significant health issues faced by his father, leading to memory loss and inability to inform the assessee about the receipt of the assessment order. The Tribunal emphasized that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice, citing precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and justified the delay. It acknowledged that negligence on the part of the assessee might have occurred but was not deliberate. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. However, a cost of ?2,500 was imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remitted back to the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach in interpreting "sufficient cause" and condoned the delay based on the explanation provided by the assessee.