9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 990 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - reasons for delay - sufficient cause for delay - Held that - Whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach If we look the explanation of the assessee, it reveals that the assessee could not afford to make its appeal time-barred knowingly. The delay in filing the appeal happened on account of communication gap between the management as well as part-time accountant, who has collected copy of the order from the tax consultant office and subsequently left the job. In the present case, by making the appeal time barred, the assessee would not achieve anything. It is also to be seen that a possible human negligence will put the assessee with tax liability of substantial sum along with penalty. In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) and set aside the impugned orders. We, therefore, remit these proceedings before learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the learned CIT(A) and dismissal of appeals as time-barred. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2003-04. One appeal was related to the quantum assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the other appeal was against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The primary grievance of the assessee in both appeals was the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the subsequent dismissal of the appeals as time-barred. The delay in the quantum appeal was one year and three days, while the penalty appeal was delayed by six months and seven days. 3. The assessee provided a detailed explanation for the delay, attributing it to various unavoidable circumstances such as financial difficulties, staff turnover, and relocation of office records. However, the CIT(A) was not convinced by the reasons presented and refused to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of both appeals. 4. During the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee reiterated the reasons for the delay, emphasizing that the delay was unintentional and caused by genuine hardships faced by the company. In contrast, the Departmental Representative argued that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay. 5. The ITAT examined the legal provisions regarding condonation of delay, emphasizing the need to interpret the term "sufficient cause" liberally. Referring to previous court decisions, the ITAT highlighted the importance of balancing substantial justice with technical considerations while considering delay in filing appeals. 6. Citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, the ITAT underscored that the purpose of limitation laws is to prevent dilatory tactics without unduly restricting access to justice. The ITAT applied a justice-oriented approach to evaluate the reasons for delay presented by the assessee and concluded that the delay was not intentional or part of a dilatory strategy. 7. Based on the legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, the ITAT found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the proceedings for adjudication on merits. 8. Ultimately, the ITAT allowed both appeals of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of considering the genuine reasons for delay in filing appeals and ensuring that substantial justice prevails in tax matters. Conclusion: The ITAT's judgment in the case highlighted the significance of interpreting legal provisions liberally to condone delays in filing appeals, especially when genuine hardships or unforeseen circumstances contribute to the delay. The decision underscored the need to balance technical considerations with the principles of substantial justice to ensure fair adjudication in tax disputes.
|
