2019 (3) TMI 739 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for delay - Assessee, urged before us that on account of floods in Chennai and non-availability of Finance Manager concerned and also as records and documents of the appellant company could not be traced easily, a delay of 87 days had occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal due to a bonafide and reasonable cause and, as such, the learned Tribunal ought to have decided the appeal on merits - different bench of the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the A) for AY 2014-2015 for consideration in similar circumstances - HELD THAT - Since the matter already stands remitted back to the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2014-2015, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for the present Assessment Year 2012-2013 as well, so that the Assessee can be heard before the Assessing Authority on merits de novo with regard to both Assessment Years and parity.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Grounds for condonation of delay.
3. Comparison with a previous order by a different bench of the Tribunal.
4. Remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for both Assessment Years.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Tribunal. The appellant argued that the delay was due to floods in Chennai, non-availability of the Finance Manager, and difficulty in tracing company records. The Tribunal, however, found the reasons provided in the condonation petition to be vague and not reasonable enough to warrant condonation of the delay, citing the principle that the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.

2. The appellant contended that the delay was due to bona fide and reasonable causes, such as the mentioned floods and unavailability of the Finance Manager. The appellant's counsel highlighted a previous order by the Tribunal in a similar case where the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for consideration. The Tribunal, in that case, had given the appellant another opportunity to present their case, indicating a precedent for reconsideration based on valid reasons.

3. Drawing on the precedent set by the previous order of the Tribunal, the High Court decided to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for the present Assessment Year 2012-2013. This decision aimed to ensure that the appellant could present their case before the Assessing Authority on merits de novo for both Assessment Years, thereby maintaining parity and fairness in the proceedings.

4. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal of the Assessee, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority for Assessment Year 2012-2013 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to be heard and considered on the merits of the case, ensuring a just and equitable resolution.