2018 (5) TMI 1486 - AT - Income Tax

Whether the delay of 1142 days in filing of the appeal before CIT(A) can be condoned - order passed u/s 200A(1) was appealable before 1.6.2015 or not - Held that - When a case with arguable points is shut on presumptions of limitation, it results in throwing out a good case at the threshold with only a necessary implication of justice being propagated and justice being denied. - the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) is to be condoned in the interest of justice - the issue is to be considered on merits in accordance with law and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee - allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order dated 31/08/2017 of CIT(A) for AY 2013-14, delay of 1142 days in filing appeal, appealability of order u/s 200A, levy of late fee u/s 234E, refusal to condone delay by CIT(A), interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/08/2017 of CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 with a delay of 1142 days. The assessee contended that there was no provision for appeal u/s 246A against the order passed u/s 200A at the time of filing the appeal. However, CIT(A) held that order u/s 200A was always appealable as per the provisions of section 246(1)(a), and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 did not affect the appealability of the order u/s 200A(1)(c) which levied late fee u/s 234E. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) due to the delay.

2. The assessee then appealed to ITAT, arguing that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The ITAT considered the delay and observed that the orders passed u/s 200A were appealable as per section 246A. The assessee cited a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which held that the substitution of clauses in section 200A should have prospective effect, not retrospective. The ITAT agreed with this interpretation and emphasized that 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay should be interpreted in a manner that serves the cause of justice.

3. Citing the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji, the ITAT highlighted that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay is elastic to enable courts to do substantial justice. Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice. The ITAT directed the file to be remitted back to CIT(A) for considering the issue on merits after condoning the delay and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes by the ITAT, emphasizing the importance of interpreting legal provisions in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the decision of the ITAT.