2020 (10) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay had occurred due to the pendency of a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 154 - eligible submission of sufficient cause for delay - HELD THAT - It is not clear from the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) as to why a finding was recorded by the CIT (Appeals) that the rectification application u/s 154 before AO are issues which have no connection with the interest charged by the AO. CIT(Appeals) while passing the impugned order appears to have touched upon the issues which have some bearing in the outcome of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, without reference to the materials relied upon to arrive at such a finding. As in the interest of justice to remand the matter back in the Commissioner of Income Tax Act(Appeals) to re-decide afresh the issue of condonation of delay by providing adequate opportunities to the Assessee to refer to and/or rely on, any such grounds as may be sought to be relied upon her and after proper hearing in the matter.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act rejected on the ground of delay.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was rejected due to a delay in filing, with the Commissioner holding that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, which hindered her from seeking timely legal advice. The Income Tax Department, represented by the senior standing counsel, requested the court to decide on the matter and allow them to file a necessary counter-affidavit. The court observed that the petitioner had approached the Department for statutory remedy but was unable to avail it due to the dismissal of her appeal based on delay.

The court referred to Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, which allows for the admission of an appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. The appeal memo indicated the grounds for the delay, citing the filing of a rectification under Section 154 as the reason. The impugned order highlighted the delay in filing the appeal and the reasons provided, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court noted that the Commissioner's order did not sufficiently explain why the grounds for delay were considered insufficient, and it lacked a clear basis for the decision.

After considering the arguments and provisions of the Act, the court decided to set aside the Commissioner's order and remand the matter back for re-decision. The court emphasized the need for a proper hearing, allowing the Assessee to present any relevant grounds for condonation of delay. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was directed to re-decide the issue within sixty days from the receipt of the court's order, ensuring proper notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the petitioner. The order was marked to the Income Tax Department for consideration, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.