2021 (6) TMI 101 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for delay - sufficient cause for delay - HELD THAT - As assessee was not aware about the assessment order or about the proceedings at the level of the assessment officer. Immediately, when she came into the knowledge about the order, she e-filed the appeal, and in the process delay of 66 days was occurred. To my mind, looking to the quantum of delay of 66 days, and also of the fact that on similar set of facts, in the case of relative of the assessee viz. Kuntalal Mahesh Gandhi for the A.Y.2012-13 to 2014-15, the delay of 870 days has been condoned by the ld.CIT(A), substantial justice demands a practical approach on the part of the ld.CIT(A) in condoning the delay. It is pertinent to take note that by making delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee would not achieve anything. Thus, such delay cannot be adopted as a strategy. I condone the impugned delay, and set aside order of the ld.CIT(A) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-admission of appeal due to late filing by 66 days.
2. Quashing the order passed under section 147 rws 144 for reassessment.
3. Deletion of addition of unexplained investment of ?9,05,412.

Issue 1: Non-admission of appeal due to late filing by 66 days:
The appeal arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad's order for assessment year 2012-13. The assessee filed the appeal after a delay of 66 days from the date of service of the assessment order, beyond the time limit stipulated under section 249 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee explained the delay by stating she was unaware of the assessment order. The ld.CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation, finding no reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal considered the expression "sufficient cause" as used in the Act liberally, citing judicial precedents. Given the short delay of 66 days and the condonation of 870 days in a similar case, the Tribunal held that substantial justice required a practical approach. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the ld.CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all issues to the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

Issue 2: Quashing the order passed under section 147 rws 144 for reassessment:
The assessee contended that the order passed under section 147 rws 144 for reassessment was bad in law. However, the Tribunal's decision on the first issue rendered this issue moot as the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and all other issues were remitted to the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition of unexplained investment of ?9,05,412:
The ld.CIT(A) had not deleted the addition of unexplained investment of ?9,05,412. Since the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and remitted for adjudication on merit, this issue would also be reconsidered by the ld.CIT(A) in light of the Tribunal's decision on the first issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, primarily focusing on the non-admission of the appeal due to a delay of 66 days. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice and a practical approach in condoning the delay, setting aside the ld.CIT(A)'s order and remitting all issues for fresh adjudication.