Practice support-explaining delay in filing of appeal

[DEVKUMAR KOTHARI]

Inactions of Tax authorities on applications of assesse, and regular efforts made by assesse to pursue such applications can be considered as a   reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing further appeal, and Courts can be willing to render justice by condoning delay.

Recent judgment for learning:

PRITPAL SINGH BASAN VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1) , IT, KOLKATA - 2025 (1) TMI 377 - ITAT KOLKATA

Scope of this article is restricted mainly to issue of condonation of delay.

In this case a very important issue is about explanation for delay in filing of second appeal and order allowing long delay in filing appeal before ITAT.

On reading of the judgment it is noticed that learned Authorised Representatives (in short)  A/R of the assessee namely Sumanta Saha & Kirti Kapoor  were  diligently pursuing rectification petitions filed  before learned CIT(A) and learned  AO both based on binding circulars of CBDT and binding judgment of honorable Calcutta High Court.

During discussions,  with authorities learned A/R’s were hopeful  that it is likely that rectification petitions will be allowed.

However, unfortunately both authorities failed to follow binding precedence and binding instruction from CBDT and assesses was burdened with huge demands and its consequences like withholding of refund for relevant years and other years as well.

However, when  efforts of learned A/R’s  did not yield any  result (even rejection of petitions was not made to pave way for further actions) and it was not possible to further pursue the alternate course of rectification the learned  A/ r's decided to file second  appeal.

In these facts and circumstances, honorable  Tribunal found reasonable cause and  condoned  long delay in filing of appeals and on merit allowed appeals also.

This is off course a case of justice done to stop harassment by tax authorities.

Although Learned A/r’s did not raise issues of gross injustice by authorities and intervening COVID period and difficulties, specifically. However, author feel that these were important and of course, in this case gross injustice  by CIT(A) and AO by  keeping rectification petitions pending and by not rectifying orders might also have weighed in minds of honorable members while considering COD.

Cost of appeals:

Although ground was preferred for cost of appeal as follows:

“ 7. For that honorable Tribunal may allow the cost of appeal in favour of the assessee.”

However, on reading of the judgment  it seems that this ground was not specifically discussed. There is also  no  mention about any ground withdrawn. And I has been  just considered as related to main issue of appeal as per the following :

Honorable Tribunal has noted as follows:

Other grounds of appeal being general in nature or related to Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are not being adjudicated upon separately.

If so advised, assessee can seek further justice by filing a petition to consider thiss ground and allow cost of appeals, Rs, 20K  as ITAT appeal fees and fees of A/R’s in pursuing appeals which had to be filed due to inactions of authorities below.

This article is on general nature and can be applicable in case of any law, which permit condonation of delay in filing of appeals hence covered under ‘other topics’.