2018 (6) TMI 66 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing petition - Condonation of delay Petition not filled - Held that - There was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). However, there was no valid condonation petition filed by the assessee and also the assessee has not given good and sufficient reason to condone the delay. As such, the CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee. In our opinion, the appeal of the assessee is to be decided by the CIT(A) as to whether it is duly signed in terms of section 140(c) and also if he finds that it is a valid appeal, then he has to decide the issue of condonation of delay and to decide the appeal on the merits of the issue raised by the assessee, if required. With this observation, we remit the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) de nova.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) and condonation of delay.
2. Rejection of appeal by CIT(A) due to delay.
3. Grounds of appeal before Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 19/12/2016 concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee, a cooperative bank, failed to deduct tax at source u/s. 194A of the IT Act during a survey conducted at its main branch. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 201(1) of the Act with a demand of ?5,06,336. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 426 days in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and not acceptable. The CIT(A) held that not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit empowers him not to admit the appeal unless sufficient cause is shown. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal.

2. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the delay was beyond their control and should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that there was a delay in filing the appeal, but no valid condonation petition was filed by the assessee, and no good and sufficient reason was provided to condone the delay. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on whether the appeal was valid and the issue of condonation of delay. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

3. The grounds of appeal before the Tribunal included the contention that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal due to the delay and should have considered the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide on the validity of the appeal, the condonation of delay, and to decide on the merits of the issue raised by the assessee if required. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a valid appeal and a proper consideration of the condonation of delay before deciding on the merits of the case.