2023 (8) TMI 918 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) - eligible reasons for delay - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v M Krishna Murthy 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT and H.L Malhotra Com. 2020 (12) TMI 1083 - DELHI HIGH COURT as relied by the ld. counsel, held that if there is sufficient cause explaining the delay then the same should be condone as the assessee never benefited by the delayed filing of appeal. In the present case the assessee wanted to depend on particular consultant whereas the revenue justifying the denial of condonation by suggesting that the assessee should have engaged other counsel or consultant. The revenue is not entitled to suggest the assessee to manage his tax litigation it is choice of assessee that how he wants to proceed before the tax authorities. CIT(A) has not disputed or doubted factum of illness of Shri S.M Mathur who undergone bypass surgery during relevant time period. Therefore the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) is condoned and ground no. 1 of assessee is allowed. Since the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed appeals in limine denying condonation of delay with expressing any adjudication on merits therefore both the appeals are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of first appeal on merits

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Denial of condonation of delay by ld. CIT(A).

Summary:
The appeals were filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi dated 07.06.2019 for AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14, specifically challenging the denial of condonation of delay by the ld. CIT(A).

Denial of Condonation of Delay:
The appellant argued that the delay of 603 days in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned due to the unavailability of the appeal counsel, Mr. Mathur, who was handling appeal matters for the appellant company and was indisposed due to health reasons. The appellant contended that the delay should be condoned as there was no negligence attributable to the assessee, especially given the strong case on merits. The appellant cited various legal precedents to support their argument. On the other hand, the Senior DR opposed the condonation of delay, suggesting that the appellant could have engaged another counsel for filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, which emphasized that delay should be condoned if there is a sufficient cause explaining the delay. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had relied on a particular consultant, Shri S.M. Mathur, who was indisposed due to health reasons, and the revenue's suggestion for engaging another counsel was not binding on the appellant. The Tribunal found that the illness of Shri S.M. Mathur, who had undergone bypass surgery, was not disputed, and hence, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Consequently, the ground raised by the appellant regarding the denial of condonation of delay was allowed.

As the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits due to the delay issue, both appeals were restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits without being influenced by the earlier order. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The order was pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2023.