2020 (10) TMI 992 - AT - Income Tax

Condone the delay of 440 days in filing appeal - Eligible reasons for delay - assessee was waiting for the rectification pending before the AO against the order u/s 143 (1) - HELD THAT - Delay was for this reason that the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy available under the law because there was no dispute about quantum of income because returned income was accepted and the dispute was only regarding non granting of credit for TDS by DCIT (CPC) which can be rectified u/s 154. We find that in the facts of the present case as noted above, we are satisfied that the assessee was bonafidely pursuing alternative remedy available under the law and therefore, by respectfully following this tribunal order, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT (A) for a decision on merit. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal before CIT (A) and condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT (A) refusing to condone the delay of 440 days in filing the appeal before him, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as unadmitted without deciding the issue on merit.

2. The assessee explained that the delay was due to waiting for rectification pending before the AO against the order under section 143(1). The delay was caused as the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy available under the law, specifically related to the non-granting of credit for TDS by the DCIT (CPC), which could be rectified under section 154.

3. The CIT (A) noted the assessee's explanation in para 4.1 of the order, where it was mentioned that the rectification petition under section 154 was filed on 23.01.2017 after receiving the demand notice on 09.01.2017. The delay was also attributed to the incorrect transfer of the rectification petition by the CPC to the AO, leading to further pursuit of the matter by the assessee.

4. The assessee relied on a tribunal order in a similar case to support the contention that if the assessee is genuinely pursuing an alternative remedy available under the law, the delay should be condoned. The tribunal order emphasized the importance of bonafide pursuit of alternative remedies in condoning delays.

5. The ITAT, after considering the submissions, found that the assessee was genuinely pursuing an alternative remedy available under the law. Following the precedent set by the tribunal order, the ITAT decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT (A) for a decision on merit.

6. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was restored back to the CIT (A) for a decision on merit.