2018 (7) TMI 2346 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filing appeal before the CIT(A) - delay of 540 days in filing of the appeal - assessee submitted that he was not properly advised by the tax practitioner, who had received the order - HELD THAT - Assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause from filing of this appeal in time. Both the assessee and the tax consultant have filed affidavits giving the facts. Hence, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). While doing so in terms of the judgment of Vijay Vishin Meghani 2017 (10) TMI 248 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we direct the assessee to pay costs of ₹ 10,000/- to the revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause.
3. Application of legal principles regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the assessee was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. The delay of 540 days in filing the appeal was the primary issue. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal citing lack of explanation for the delay, as the assessee claimed to have not been properly advised by the tax practitioner who received the order.

2. The counsel for the assessee argued that the delay should be condoned as the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal on time due to improper advice. The Tribunal referred to various case laws to analyze the issue of condonation of delay. Notably, the Tribunal cited the case of Devendra Kumar Verma vs. ITO and Anil Kumar Verma vs. ITO to support the argument that delay can be condoned based on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice.

3. The Tribunal further discussed other decisions such as Madhu Dadha vs. Asstt. CIT and Shree Balaji Woollen Mills vs. Asstt. CIT where delays in filing appeals were not condoned due to insufficient reasons provided. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice and the need to consider each case on its merits. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to highlight the importance of considering all relevant factors in condoning delays.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned in the present case. The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay costs to the revenue and restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the issue was not previously adjudicated on merits. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of considering substantial justice and legal principles in such matters.