9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 381 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 1422 days - Ex-parte best judgement assessment u/s 144 - Illiterate person - HELD THAT - Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. KF Bioplants (P) Ltd 2015 (3) TMI 614 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has condoned the delay of 1845 days in filing of the appeal by the Revenue on the ground that the failure of the revenue to remove the objection within time was an unintentional lapse and admission of the appeal by itself would not cause any prejudice to the assessee therein. In none of the above decisions the circumstances therein are exactly similar to the case of the assessee. However from the principles laid down therein that ordinarily a litigant does not benefit by the delay and by refusing to condone the delay a meritorious matter might be thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated inclined to condone the delay and remand the issue to the file of the AO for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing. This delay is condoned subject to the condition that the assessee pays a sum of 10, 000/- to the P.M s Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and shall file the proof of the same before the AO only after which the AO shall take up the assessment proceedings. The assessee shall also cooperate with the AO for an early completion of the assessment. Assessee s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Completion of assessment ex-parte under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Merits of the assessee's case regarding income estimation from the wine business and disallowance of sundry creditors. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The primary issue was the delay of 1422 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, an illiterate individual, claimed ignorance of statutory provisions and relied on unprofessional advice, leading to non-appearance before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee cited various judicial precedents to support the condonation of delay, emphasizing that a strong case on merits should warrant leniency. The Tribunal acknowledged the principles laid down in cited cases, notably emphasizing that refusal to condone delay could result in a meritorious matter being dismissed at the threshold. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to the condition that the assessee pays ?10,000 to the PM’s Relief Fund and provides proof of payment to the AO. 2. Completion of Assessment Ex-parte under Section 143(3) read with Section 144: The assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 due to the assessee’s non-appearance despite multiple notices. The AO estimated the income from the wine business, disallowed sundry creditors amounting to ?24,90,000, estimated interest on sundry debtors at ?3,59,200, and added interest income from the bank amounting to ?21,476. The Tribunal noted that the assessee’s representative failed to provide necessary information, leading to the ex-parte assessment. 3. Merits of the Assessee's Case: The Tribunal considered the merits of the assessee’s case, noting the non-adjudication on merits by the CIT(A) due to the assessee’s non-compliance. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents where delays were condoned due to genuine reasons such as lack of proper advice or ignorance of law. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the assessee should not be prejudiced due to lapses in professional advice. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for a decision on merits after providing the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing. Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the principles of substantial justice and the need to decide the case on merits. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration, subject to the assessee paying ?10,000 to the PM’s Relief Fund and cooperating with the AO for early completion of the assessment. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
|
