2020 (11) TMI 7 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay is of nominal 47 days - HELD THAT - Assessee has bonafide explanation and no prejudice is going to be caused to the Revenue if appeal is decided on merits. Thus, by taking a pragmatic view and considering the circumstances as explained above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee is restored to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee on merits, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as A.O. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) due to misconduct of earlier Counsel leading to ex-parte assessment order under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, for the A.Y. 2016-2017. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had passed an ex-parte assessment order making an addition under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961, due to an unexplained deposit in the bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) noted a delay of 47 days in the appeal and did not condone it, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Director of the Assessee-Company filed an affidavit explaining the delay, attributing it to the unprofessional conduct of the earlier Counsel and the subsequent engagement of a new Counsel. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept this explanation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities, while the Departmental Representative (D.R.) argued that since the assessee was ex-parte before the A.O., the delay was rightly not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the submissions and the affidavit filed by the Director of the Assessee-Company. It noted that the delay was due to the negligence of the earlier Counsel and the time taken to engage a new Counsel. Citing the case law of Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC), the Tribunal emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in condoning delays, distinguishing between inordinate delays and minor ones. In this case, the delay of 47 days was nominal and caused by Counsel's negligence, justifying condonation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Orders of the authorities below, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to re-decide the appeal on merits, providing sufficient opportunity for both the assessee and the A.O. to be heard. The appeal of the Assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced in the open Court.