2020 (8) TMI 408 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 502 days - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as appeal against the order passed by the AO for first quarter of financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11. The facts are not in dispute that the assessee dully filed the appeal within the period of limitation however, due to bonafide mistake and that too on the part of the tax consultant of the assessee to file one appeal instead of 4 separate appeals for each quarter order passed by the AO. Accordingly, in these facts and circumstances when the assessee has explained the cause of delay which is factually correct as due to bonafide mistake the assessee filed only one appeal instead of four separate appeals against quarterly orders passed by the AO, we condone the delay of 502 days in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine are set aside and the matters are remitted to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits. Needs to say that the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against orders under sections 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Relief against wrongly holding the assessee as assessee in default for not deducting tax at source.
3. Treatment of appeals filed by the assessee against orders passed by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

1. The assessee filed three appeals against orders of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur arising from the Assessing Officer's orders under sections 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for specific quarters of the financial year 2009-10. The primary issue was the condonation of delay in filing these appeals. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals citing lack of justified reasons for the delay of 502 days. The assessee explained the delay as a bonafide mistake by the tax consultant in filing one appeal instead of four separate appeals for each quarter. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake as genuine and condoned the delay, remitting the matters back to the ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

2. The second issue revolved around relief sought by the assessee against being wrongly held as assessee in default for not deducting tax at source from various interest payments. The ld. CIT(A) had raised demands under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) based on these defaults. The Tribunal found that the original appeal was filed within the limitation period, but due to a bonafide mistake, only one appeal was filed instead of four separate appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for the assessee to be given a fair hearing before any fresh orders are passed.

3. The final issue addressed the treatment of appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) initially treated the single appeal filed by the assessee as pertaining to the first quarter of the financial year 2009-10. Upon the assessee's objection, three separate appeals were filed with an explanation for the delay. The Tribunal recognized the factual correctness of the delay explanation due to a bonafide mistake and remitted the matters for a decision on merits, ensuring the assessee's right to a proper hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the dismissal by the ld. CIT(A) and remitting the matters for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity for hearing.