9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1269 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - 234 days delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the assessee's appeal suffers from 234 days delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic, COVID-19, the assessee was unable to file the appeal in time as prescribed by the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on Civil Appeal 2019 (12) TMI 1293 - SUPREME COURT in which it was held that such delay supported by cogent reasons deserves to be condoned, so as to make a way for the cause of substantial justice. Therefore, after considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we hold that the assessee's impugned delay of 234 days is neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond it's control. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 234 days and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the assessee's appeal on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal on grounds of insufficient cause. Analysis: The appellant, a Private Limited Company engaged in ocean freight services, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. The appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to a delay of 234 days in filing the appeal. The appellant contended that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and relied on a Supreme Court decision and a CBDT Circular extending the period of limitation for filing appeals. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the delay was not intentional and the appeal should be heard on merits. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed condoning the delay, stating that the intimation was sent online, and unawareness of it is not a valid ground for condonation. Regarding the delay issue, the ITAT held that the appellant's delay of 234 days in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond its control, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing a previous decision, the ITAT emphasized that delays supported by cogent reasons should be condoned to ensure substantial justice. Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the delay was unintentional and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes. In addition to the delay issue, the appellant raised various grounds challenging the additions made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) to the returned income. These grounds included disputes over the Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance, profit on the sale of a vehicle, and disallowance of employee's contribution to State Insurance. The appellant argued that these additions were unjustified as they were made within the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the ITAT's judgment primarily focused on the delay issue and the subsequent condonation, leading to the remittance of the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for further consideration on merits.
|
