2021 (9) TMI 1321 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - HELD THAT - By all possibilities no one can deny that there are delays in filing the appeal. Every person has a right to appeal and specifically in the case of company which depends in the efficiency of various individuals. In the given case the junior accountant has not brought to the notice of senior management. One cannot deny the above possibility. Merely because the company is professionally managed we cannot assure that they cannot make any mistake. There is saying that there is dark under the light. Therefore in the interest of justice we restore the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delays in filing these appeals before him and decide various grounds of appeal of the assessee on merits. Accordingly the CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees and thereafter decide the appeals on merits. See MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals before ITAT
- Dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) without condoning the delay
- Restoration of matters to CIT(A) for deciding appeals on merits

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to appeals filed by different assessees against CIT(A) orders for AY 2017-18 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT noted delays in filing the appeals, ranging from 1 day to 348 days, but found reasonable causes for the delays. Citing case law, the ITAT condoned the delays as unintentional and beyond the assessees' control, emphasizing the need for substantial justice. The cases were then taken up for adjudication on merits.

2. The grounds raised in the appeals were against the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without condoning the delays, except in one case. During the hearing, it was highlighted that the CIT(A) had decided the matters ex-parte, leading to a request for restoration for deciding the appeals on merits. The ITAT agreed, emphasizing the right to appeal and the possibility of errors even in professionally managed entities. Relying on judicial precedents, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for condoning the delays and deciding the appeals on merits.

3. The ITAT directed the assessees to appear before the CIT(A) with relevant evidence for three opportunities of hearing, emphasizing their own risk and responsibilities. Additionally, in a specific case where the appeal was dismissed due to non-appearance by the assessee, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. Ultimately, all appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with a copy of the order to be placed in the respective case files.

4. The judgment, delivered by the ITAT Hyderabad, showcases a meticulous analysis of the delays in filing appeals, the importance of condoning delays for substantial justice, and the restoration of matters for a fair adjudication on merits. The legal principles and precedents cited underscore the ITAT's commitment to upholding the right to appeal and ensuring a just and equitable resolution of tax disputes.