2018 (2) TMI 2107 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation petition before CIT(A) - CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, citing a reason that assessee did not file any evidence in support of the contentions raised in the condonation petition - AR submitted that he himself was the concerned AR appointed by the assessee to appear before the CIT(Appeals) and due to certain personal inconvenience, he could not enter appearance - HELD THAT - No doubt it should be the endeavor of every assessee to ensure that it is properly represented before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, considering the submission of the ld. Authorised Representative before us that the delay was due to certain unavoidable circumstances, we are of the opinion that delay ought be condoned. When technical consideration and merits are pitted against each other, the latter has to get preference over the former. We direct the CIT(Appeals) to condone the delay, admit the appeal and adjudicate it on merits. Needless to say that assessee shall be given proper opportunity to explain its case. We therefore set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and remit the appeal back to him for consideration afresh in accordance with law - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed due to a delay of thirty-three days in filing the appeal. The appellant had submitted a condonation petition stating that the delay was due to the busy schedule of their consultant and not due to neglect. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) refused to condone the delay, citing lack of evidence supporting the reason for the delay as stated in the petition. The appellant's representative mentioned personal inconvenience as the reason for not appearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and requested another opportunity to represent the case properly.

The Departmental Representative argued that the condonation petition was inadmissible as it lacked a valid reason for the delay. Despite five notices sent by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appellant did not appear, justifying the dismissal of the appeal. However, upon considering the contentions and perusing the orders, the Tribunal found that the delay was not wilful and the appellant had not gained anything from it. The Tribunal opined that the delay should be condoned, emphasizing that merits should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to admit the appeal, provide the appellant with an opportunity to present their case, and adjudicate it on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remitting the appeal back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The decision was pronounced in an open court on February 26, 2018, in Chennai.