2024 (10) TMI 1561 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) - sufficient cause for delay - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji Ors. 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. As decided in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others 2002 (2) TMI 1280 - SUPREME COURT that the expression sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides can be imputed to the defaulting party. Thus, delay in filing of appeal is condoned before the CIT(A). The appeal is restored to the file of CIT(A), for deciding appeal of the assessee on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/make submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:

1. Delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Merits of the case and the addition made in the assessment order.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2015-16. The Counsel for the assessee argued that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground of limitation due to being belated by 274 days. The assessee had filed an Application for condonation, explaining the reasons for the delay. The Counsel contended that the delay was due to the closure of operations in India, lack of a dedicated person for tax compliances, and the non-receipt of the assessment order. The department, represented by Shri Ekta Jain, opposed the condonation, stating that the reasons for the delay were not bona fide.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the orders, the Tribunal found that the delay was due to bonafide reasons and not negligence on the part of the assessee. Citing the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure justice is not compromised. Referring to the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of accepting explanations for delays unless negligence or lack of bonafides is evident. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of considering bonafide reasons for delay and adopting a liberal approach towards condonation.