2019 (2) TMI 1068 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - bonafide mistake at the end of the chief accountant - delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner - Held that - Sub-section 5 of Section 253 of the Act contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Chief accountant of the company was ill and failed to hand over assessment order to the tax consultant for filing appeal. To our mind, there is no mala fide in this explanation. The delay had occurred on account of bonafide mistake at the end of the chief accountant. By making delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee would not achieve anything. Thus, it cannot be adopted as a strategy. It could only be a result out of bonafide mistake. We condone the delay, and set aside the order of the CIT(A). We remit all other issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed by CIT(A) on the ground of limitation.
2. Request for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. Interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.
4. Consideration of explanation for delay by the chief accountant.
5. Decision on remitting all other issues to CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Tribunal was against the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The CIT(A) found the appeal was filed 136 days late without a valid reason and refused to condone the delay based on lack of evidence supporting the cause for delay.

2. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay, stating that the chief accountant, due to illness, failed to hand over the assessment order to the tax consultant for filing the appeal. The Tribunal considered this explanation and noted that there was no mala fide intent behind the delay, attributing it to a bona fide mistake by the chief accountant.

3. The Tribunal referred to legal provisions stating that the term "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally. Citing previous court decisions, it emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and highlighted that delay should not be presumed to be deliberate or due to negligence.

4. Considering the circumstances and the explanation provided, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a genuine mistake and not a strategic move by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all other issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating that the decision was based on the condonation of delay and the need for further assessment of the case on its merits. The order was pronounced in court on February 1, 2019, in Ahmedabad.