2012 (6) TMI 474 - AT - Income Tax

Application for condonation of delay before CIT(A) - daly of 4 days - assessee contended that the officer, who had been dealing with the work of Tax Deduction at Source was transferred on 17/04/2010 and the appeal had to be filed by 08/05/2010 and that the new person was not conversant and accustomed with the day-to-day handling of the seat and had to take out details relevant for filing the appeal Held that - in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil (2001 - TMI - 40328 - SUPREME Court - Income Tax), In the said year the delay was of 10 days while in the assessment year 2008-2009 the number of days for delay were the same i.e., 4 days. - Delay condoned. - CIT(A) to hear the appeal on merit.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (A)
- Justifiability of the delay by the assessee
- Maintainability of the appeal due to absence of assessment
- Admissibility of appeal against the order for charging interest
- Applicability of the judgment in a similar case with a different assessment year

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (A)
The main grievance of the assessee was against the CIT (A)'s action in not condoning the delay of a few days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained the delay due to the transfer of the officer handling the TDS work, resulting in a short delay of four days. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal citing that the Principal Officer, who was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, was not transferred, and therefore, there was no justification for the delay. However, the ITAT found that the delay was reasonable given the circumstances, as the new incumbent was not familiar with the day-to-day workings, and thus, the delay was condoned.

Issue 2: Justifiability of the delay by the assessee
The ITAT considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the delay was only for a short period of four days. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the ITAT emphasized that a liberal approach should be taken for minor delays. Therefore, the ITAT directed the CIT (A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the appeal due to absence of assessment
The CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal stating that no assessment was made, only an order for charging interest. However, the ITAT clarified that proceedings for charging interest under sections 201 and 201(1A) can be initiated independently from the assessment. The ITAT held that the appeal against the order for charging interest was maintainable before the CIT (A).

Issue 4: Admissibility of appeal against the order for charging interest
The ITAT found that the order under section 201 was appealable before the CIT (A) as per the provisions of section 246A(1)(ha). Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the CIT (A) was not justified in holding that the order for charging interest was not appealable.

Issue 5: Applicability of the judgment in a similar case with a different assessment year
For similar cases with different assessment years, the ITAT applied its findings from the current case to ensure consistency. The ITAT allowed all appeals for statistical purposes, maintaining uniformity across cases with similar issues.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment focused on condoning the delay in filing the appeal, justifying the delay by the assessee, affirming the maintainability of the appeal despite the absence of assessment, and ensuring the admissibility of the appeal against the order for charging interest. The ITAT's decision aimed to provide a fair and consistent approach to similar cases with varying assessment years.