2010 (4) TMI 266 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of dealy delay of 242 days in filing an appeal before ITAT - The CIT (A) rejected the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, vide order dated 20.6.2007. Thereafter the appeal was preferred under Section 253 of the Act before the Tribunal on 18.8.2007. For the period the appeal was pending before the CIT (A) Karnal, delay of 242 days had occurred for which an application for condonation of delay was filed. Tribunal refused to condone the delay Held that - appellant was pursuing the remedy at a wrong forum in a bona fide belief that the appeal was competent before the CIT (A) Karnal, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay. It is evident that the aforesaid course was adopted by the appellant without any ill intention to avail any benefit. - The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the period spent on pursuing the remedy before a wrong forum should have been condoned by the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal due to pursuing remedy at the wrong forum.

Analysis:
The appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was directed against an order dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay of 242 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant had mistakenly availed the remedy of appeal before the Regular Appellate Authority, CIT (A) Karnal, leading to the delay. The Tribunal has the power to condone the delay under Section 253(5) of the Act if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. The Tribunal rejected the appeal by refusing to condone the delay, citing the lack of a bona fide reason disclosed for condonation of delay. However, no satisfaction with regard to the plea raised by the appellant was recorded. The appellant pursued the remedy at a wrong forum in a bona fide belief that the appeal was competent before CIT (A) Karnal, without any ill intention to avail any benefit. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the period spent on pursuing the remedy before the wrong forum should have been condoned by the Tribunal.

The Court noted that the appellant's mistake in pursuing the remedy before CIT (A) Karnal was bona fide, causing the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The principle of the right of one appeal prevailing in all jurisdictions was emphasized. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the Tribunal to entertain the appeal and decide it on merit. The Court concluded that the delay should be condoned due to the appellant's genuine mistake in pursuing the remedy at the wrong forum, leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.