2024 (12) TMI 564 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal - delay of 2208 days - HELD THAT - Tribunal is found to be perverse as the Tribunal has recorded incorrect facts in para 10 of the order which is reproduced herein above more particularly by recording fact on the address mentioned in Form No. 35 order of the CIT(A) was delivered hence the department cannot be blamed. The above findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the record as evident from the facts narrated here-in-above. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal by the appellant and decide the case on merits. The impugned order passed by Tribunal is therefore quashed and set aside. The questions proposed by the appellant and the substantial questions framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The delay of 2208 days in preferring appeal is hereby ordered to be condoned and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to be decided on merits of the case.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, condonation of delay, whether the order of the Tribunal can be considered perverse.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant filed the return of income for A.Y. 2007-08, but the notice for reopening the assessment was issued later. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but did not receive the order. The appellant obtained the order later and filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2208 days, seeking condonation of the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal citing the delay as more than 6 years, stating that the appellant filed the appeal only after a favorable result in a related case. The Tribunal also mentioned that the appellant provided an old address in Form No. 35, leading to the delay in receiving the order. The Tribunal did not condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The appellant argued that the order from the CIT (Appeals) was not served upon them, and they filed the appeal within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of the order. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument and contended that the delay should have been condoned by the Tribunal.

The High Court found that the Tribunal's order was based on incorrect facts regarding the service of the order by the CIT (Appeals) and the timing of the appeal filing. The Court concluded that there was no delay on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal after receiving the order. The Court held that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the case on its merits. The Court quashed the Tribunal's order, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on the case's merits after providing a hearing to the appellant.

In summary, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no delay in filing the appeal, and the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and proceeded to decide the case on its merits.