2004 (3) TMI 365 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal before the CIT(A)
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
3. Jurisdictional change and confusion regarding appeal papers

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question pertains to the assessment year 1991-92. The assessee filed the appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A)-II, Jodhpur, who passed the impugned order on 1st Jan., 1996. The key issue before the tribunal was whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of lack of court fee stamps and untimely filing, without considering the merits of the case.

2. The tribunal observed discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s order, where he referred to the appeal as a "duplicate appeal" but later considered it as the original one. The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the appeal with a UPC receipt, an affidavit from the counsel, and a register entry, all indicating timely filing. The tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the appeal should have been sent through registered AD well in advance, stating that the evidence provided by the assessee was sufficient to prove timely filing.

3. The tribunal found that the assessee had filed the appeal on 22nd Feb., 1992, using UPC and sent the papers to CIT(A), Jaipur, within the stipulated time. The tribunal criticized the CIT(A)'s approach, stating that the assessee had taken reasonable steps by sending the appeal papers on time, despite a change in jurisdiction leading to confusion. The tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed within the deadline and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits.

4. The tribunal clarified that the grounds related to the merits of the case could not be addressed at that stage as they did not arise from the appellate order. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of timely filing and the need for a fair consideration of the case on its merits.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of timeliness, condonation of delay, and jurisdictional changes, providing a comprehensive overview of the tribunal's decision and reasoning.