2022 (4) TMI 1445 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay filling appeal before ITAT - delay of 1240 days - wrong professional advice - HELD THAT - The affidavit that was filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) reveals that assessee was subjected to wrong professional advice on the issues that no relief could be expected and therefore no appeal was preferred. On identical circumstances this Tribunal considered a delay of 1240 days in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10. We note that the period during which the appeals for year under consideration before the Ld.CIT(A) and appeal for immediately preceding Assessment Year (2009-10) before this Tribunal was same and the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for not filing the appeal before the respective authorities within the period of limitations are identical. It is clear that the period of time that assessee followed the wrong professional advice in preferring the respective appeals are the same. It is also true that the advice of the professional would be the point of time at which the assessee would begin to explore the option of exhausting all legal remedies. Therefore respectfully following the view adopted by this Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 2022 (7) TMI 254 - ITAT BANGALORE we accept the reasons given for the delay and thereby condone the same for not able to file an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). As the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issues on merits we remand this appeal back to Ld.CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on the merits of the case by granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to admit the appeal due to delay in filing.
2. Taxability of interest earned on deposits.
3. Taxability of other interest income.
4. Taxability of tender fees received.
5. Taxability of other miscellaneous receipts.
6. Liability to interest under sections 234B and 234D.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to Admit the Appeal Due to Delay in Filing:
The primary issue was the refusal of the CIT(A) to admit the appeal due to a delay of 1037 days in filing. The CIT(A) held that the reasons provided by the appellant did not constitute sufficient cause to condone such a significant delay. The appellant argued that the delay was due to wrong professional advice, which suggested that no relief could be expected in the appellate forum. The Tribunal noted that in a similar case for the assessment year 2009-10, a delay of 1240 days was condoned due to identical circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and condoned the delay, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

2. Taxability of Interest Earned on Deposits:
The appellant contended that the interest earned on deposits was inextricably and intrinsically connected with the business of the appellant company and should be treated as exempt from tax. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant on this issue for earlier assessment years, holding that such income was not taxable. The CIT(A) did not address the merits due to the initial dismissal based on the delay.

3. Taxability of Other Interest Income:
The appellant argued that other interest income amounting to Rs. 4,86,22,824/- was not taxable. Again, the merits were not addressed by the CIT(A) due to the dismissal based on the delay.

4. Taxability of Tender Fees Received:
The appellant claimed that the tender fees received (Rs. 1,67,00,413/-) were in pursuance of the construction of capital assets and constituted capital receipts, which are not taxable. The CIT(A) did not provide a decision on the merits due to the delay in filing the appeal.

5. Taxability of Other Miscellaneous Receipts:
The appellant argued that other miscellaneous receipts (Rs. 4,03,48,513/-) were also received in pursuance of the construction of capital assets and should be treated as capital receipts, thus not taxable. The CIT(A) did not address this issue on merits due to the delay.

6. Liability to Interest under Sections 234B and 234D:
The appellant denied liability to interest under sections 234B and 234D, arguing that the calculation of interest was not in accordance with the law. This issue was not addressed by the CIT(A) due to the initial dismissal based on the delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on the merits of the case, granting the appellant a proper opportunity to be heard. The grounds raised by the appellant were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the principle that legitimate taxes payable in accordance with the law should be collected, and technical delays should not obstruct justice.