2019 (5) TMI 2011 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - appeal was filed late by 639 days - filing a single appeal against two penalty orders passed under two different sections - penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act on the amount surrendered and simultaneously penalty u/s 271(1)(c) CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the ground that ignorance of law is not a ground to condone the delay - HELD THAT - It s a matter of public knowledge and belief that there is only assessment for one year and one penalty order for one assessment year is generally the norms. Penalty u/s 271AAA has been brought in as a special provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the instant case the assessee has filed appeal against the penalty order under section 271AAA before the CIT(A) however it was tagged along with the appeal against the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This clearly goes to prove that there was an appeal filed within the due date. Yet the technicalities have been infracted upon which can be clearly considerable as a bonafide mistake. Condonation of delay is a subjective issue and is to be viewed in the facts each case. In general the several Courts have held that the approach towards condonation of delay has to be pragmatic and liberal and not pedantic. Keeping in view the above facts it cannot be said that the assessee has accrued any benefit by filing the appeal late the same time revenue is not prejudiced if the case is considered on merits instead of dismissing on hyper-technicalities. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Manoj Ahuja (Minor) Anr 1984 (1) TMI 35 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and SMC Capitals Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 937 - ITAT DELHI Hence we here by direct that the delay may be condoned and appeal be heard on the merits of the case as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing the appeal, Condonation of delay, Proper consideration of submissions made, Filing a single appeal against two penalty orders, Ignorance of law as a ground for condonation, Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, Technicalities in filing appeals, Bonafide mistake in filing appeal, Pragmatic approach towards condonation of delay, Benefit accrued by filing appeal late, Prejudice to revenue, Appeal allowed.

Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CiT(A)-3, Gurgaon, dated 03/11/2017. The Assessee raised grounds related to the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons for the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that ignorance of law is not a ground for condonation of delay. The judgment in the case of India Gospel Fellowship Trust and other legal precedents were cited to support the decision that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and falls under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court.

Condonation of Delay:
The Assessee filed a consolidated appeal against two penalty orders passed under different sections, realizing later that it was impermissible under the law. Subsequently, a separate appeal was filed against the penalty order under section 271AAA, albeit 639 days late. The Tribunal noted that condonation of delay is a subjective issue and should be viewed pragmatically and liberally. Technicalities were considered as a bonafide mistake, and the approach towards condonation of delay should not be pedantic. Legal precedents, including judgments from the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, were cited to support the decision to condone the delay and hear the appeal on its merits.

Proper Consideration of Submissions Made:
The submissions made during the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the delay in filing the appeal were not considered properly, leading to the Assessee's contention that the delay was due to bonafide reasons. The Tribunal, in its analysis, highlighted the importance of considering all aspects and facts of the case before making a decision on the appeal.

Filing a Single Appeal Against Two Penalty Orders:
The Assessee initially filed a consolidated appeal against two penalty orders, which was later found to be impermissible under the law. Subsequently, a separate appeal was filed against one of the penalty orders, albeit with a significant delay. The Tribunal considered this aspect in conjunction with the issue of condonation of delay and the technicalities involved in filing appeals under different sections of the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic and liberal approach towards condonation of delay. The decision was based on the assessment of the facts of the case, the absence of prejudice to the revenue, and the importance of hearing the appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it on hyper-technicalities. The judgment serves as a reminder of the discretionary nature of condonation of delay and the need for a balanced and fair consideration of all relevant factors in such cases.