2019 (11) TMI 522 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 438 days - sufficiency of cause for filing the appeals belatedly - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has given the particulars of his tax consultant in the application for condonation of delay as well as affidavits which are matching with the particulars as appearing in the assessment order. CIT(A) has narrated the facts regarding various notices issued to the assessee though through the tax consultant as the address of the tax consultant was given in the Form No. 35. In response to those notices on various occasions, the tax consultant applied for adjournments of hearings but he never appeared before the ld. CIT(A) despite various opportunities and finally all these appeals of the assessee were dismissed ex parte and in limini for want of representation as well as e-filing of the appeals. Thus, the reasons explained by the assessee by giving the details are found to be factually correct to the extent of the authorized representative of the assessee and non-appearance of him before the ld. CIT(A) despite six opportunities were given by the ld. CIT(A). The authorized representative keep on filing the adjournment letters but never attended the proceedings. Therefore, we find that there is nothing on record to indicate that the assessee has acted in malafide or attempted to take any advantage by filing these appeals belatedly. It is also matter of fact that the bank accounts of the assessee were attached by the department and further inventories of the assessee were also seized and lying with the department. In those circumstances, the reasons explained by the assessee are found to be bonafide and not malafide. Further since the CIT(A) has not decided the appeals of the assessee on merits but all the appeals were dismissed in limini, therefore, in these facts and circumstances, we find that though there are inordinate delay in filing these appeals by the assessee, however, the matters ought to have been decided on merits by the CIT(A) instead of dismissing the same in limini - seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeals for multiple assessment years, condonation of delay, sufficiency of cause for delay, dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) in limini, dispute between assessee and authorized representative, liberal approach in condoning delay, principles for condonation of delay, setting aside appeals for fresh consideration.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Appeals and Condonation of Delay:
The judgment involves seven appeals by the assessee against orders for different assessment years. The delays ranged from 204 days to 438 days. The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay, citing disputes with the authorized representative and adverse circumstances like a recession affecting the business. The assessee argued that the delays were not intentional but due to circumstances beyond control. The Revenue opposed condonation, alleging factual inaccuracies in the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and relevant material on record.

2. Sufficiency of Cause for Delay:
The Tribunal referred to legal principles emphasizing a liberal approach in interpreting 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. Citing the Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji case, it highlighted the need for a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal stressed that explanations for delay must be bona fide and not a cover for ulterior motives. It analyzed the facts of the case, noting the disputes with the authorized representative and the subsequent dismissal of appeals due to lack of representation.

3. Dismissal of Appeals in Limini:
The Tribunal observed that the appeals were dismissed in limini by the CIT(A) without deciding on merits. It found the reasons explained by the assessee regarding the authorized representative's non-appearance to be factually correct. The Tribunal noted the attachment of the assessee's bank accounts and inventories by the tax department. It concluded that the delays, though significant, should have been considered on merits by the CIT(A) instead of outright dismissal.

4. Setting Aside Appeals for Fresh Consideration:
Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to condone the delays subject to a cost for each appeal. It directed the assessee to rectify the defect of non-electronic filing and set aside the appeals for the CIT(A) to grant a hearing and explain the delay of six days in filing for certain assessment years. The Tribunal allowed all seven appeals for statistical purposes only.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the reasons for delay, the sufficiency of cause, and the need for a balanced approach in condoning delays, ultimately setting aside the appeals for fresh consideration based on the circumstances presented.