2019 (7) TMI 934 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay 1131 days - sufficient cause - assessee acted bonafide under the advice from his consultants - HELD THAT - It is now well settled that the expression sufficient cause is to be construed liberally in order to advance the substantial cause of justice and not strictly to defeat it. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Limited vs.- Smt. Nirmala Devi Others 1979 (4) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the legal advice tendered by the members of the legal profession/consultant and the assessee acting upon it one way or other could be a sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay and the same coupled with the other circumstances and factors for applying liberal principles can be a ground for condoning the delay. In the present case, the applications filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeals for all the three years under consideration were duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the medical certificates and since the contents of the same were sufficient to show that the assessee had acted bonafide under the advice from his consultants and there was no negligence nor any deliberate or intentional act on his part to delay in filing of appeals, we are of the view that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) for all the three years under consideration. We, therefore, condone the said delay and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for disposing of the appeals of the assessee for all the three years under consideration on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 leading to dismissal by CIT(Appeals) for being barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The assessee, an individual, had undisclosed bank account deposits treated as proceeds of undisclosed sales and unexplained investments by the Assessing Officer for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated, resulting in penalties imposed for each year. The assessee filed appeals against these penalties with delays of 1131 days for 2009-10 and 2010-11, and 560 days for 2011-12. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals, citing lack of reasonable cause for the delays, despite explanations provided by the assessee.

The assessee's applications for condonation of delay were supported by detailed explanations, including the health issues of the authorized representative and subsequent delays due to appointing a new representative and seeking legal advice. The Tribunal emphasized the need to construe "sufficient cause" liberally to advance justice, citing legal advice as a valid reason for delay. Referring to past judgments, including the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the assessee's actions to be bonafide and not deliberate, leading to the condonation of the delay.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for further consideration on merit. The decision was based on the view that the assessee had acted in good faith under the advice received, with no negligence or intentional delay. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering all circumstances and factors to ensure justice, ultimately granting relief to the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the significance of bonafide actions, legal advice, and the need to interpret "sufficient cause" liberally to serve the interests of justice, leading to the allowance of the appeals and a remittance for further proceedings.