9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 86 - AT - Income TaxPlea for condonation of delay appeal filed before Tribunal - ex-parte order framed u/s 144 by A.O. confirmed by CIT - non-vigilance of AR - Held that - When a person has a good case on merits, defeat of his claim on technical plea of limitation would ultimately lead to injustice. In the present case, AR was not vigilant and was not attending the proceedings since starting either before the AO or before the CIT (A) and neither filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal, whereas all the papers were handed over to him in time.Therefore, we hold that there was reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass order afresh. See The Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji (1987 - TMI - 40082 - Supreme Court) Decided in favor of assessee. Similar facts are involved in the case of Sh. Lala Ram Choudhary. Hence the same is also remitted back to file of A.O.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal by different assessees. 2. Condonation of delay application due to special circumstances. 3. Failure of the appointed CA to file appeals on behalf of the assessees. 4. Request to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. Issue 1: Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal The judgment involves two separate appeals filed by different assessees against orders of the CIT (A)-III, Jaipur, relating to the assessment year 2006-07. The appeals were filed late, with one being delayed by 9 months and 7 days. The assessees cited reasons such as agricultural income exempt from tax, lack of PAN, and irregular filing of returns. The appointed CA failed to file appeals timely, resulting in ex-parte assessments and demands. The assessees, upon realizing the situation, engaged new legal representation to file the appeals before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Condonation of delay application due to special circumstances The assessees sought condonation of the appeal filing delay, arguing that they were not at fault for the late submissions. The assessees' counsels referenced legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, to support their plea for condonation. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and legal arguments, found merit in condoning the delay due to the assessees' lack of fault and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh assessment. Issue 3: Failure of the appointed CA to file appeals on behalf of the assessees The judgment highlighted the failure of the CA, engaged by the assessees, to diligently represent them before the AO and the CIT (A), leading to ex-parte decisions. The CA did not file appeals before the Tribunal despite having all necessary documents and instructions from the assessees. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' vigilance in pursuing their cases and engaging new legal representation promptly upon discovering the CA's lapses. Issue 4: Request to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment Considering the unique circumstances and the assessees' lack of fault in the delayed appeals, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal emphasized affording the assessees reasonable opportunities to present their cases and be heard during the reassessment process. Ultimately, the appeals of the assessees were allowed for statistical purposes, and the Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 03.01.2012.
|
