2021 (2) TMI 225 - AT - Income Tax

Condone the delay in filing the appeal - order passed by the assessing officer under section 272A(1)(d) - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the assessee s appeal has not been disposed of by adjudication on merits of the issues raised before the CIT(A). Further as mentioned hereinabove the assessee had gone in VSVA in regard to which were therefore on account of these peculiar facts we are condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner appeal. In respect of the other appeals as mentioned during the course of argument by the assessee as well as by the revenue that the order under section 143 (3)was passed by the assessing officer. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is before the Commissioner appeal is required to be condoned. We are of the considered opinion that the interest of substantial justice will be well served if the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the aforesaid impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh hearings, examination and adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee in the appeal before him. Needless to add, the CIT(A) shall afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details/submissions required, which shall be duly considered before deciding the issues. The assessee is also directed to comply with and attend the hearings before the CIT(A). We will make it clear that we have passed the order in the present appeal on account of peculiar facts as mentioned hereinabove and the decision in these appeal shall not be treated as precedent in any other matters

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order declining to condone delay in filing appeal under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner appeal, where the delay in filing the appeal under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act was not condoned. The grounds raised in all the appeals were identical, challenging the liability for penalty, refusal to condone the delay, failure to decide on merits, and the legality of the penalty order. The assessee argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay due to technical issues and the impact of Covid-19. The assessing officer had completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act without citing non-cooperation by the assessee. The assessee relied on previous court decisions where penalties were deleted under similar circumstances.

In response, the revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of the delay, arguing against setting a precedent and emphasizing the peculiarities of the case, including the assessee's participation in the VSV and the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had dismissed the appeal solely based on the delay without considering the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that judgments should be applied based on the facts of the case and not as a statute. Considering the substantial justice and peculiar facts of the case, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, directing a fresh hearing and examination of the issues raised by the assessee. The assessee was granted the opportunity to be heard and submit necessary details. The decision was made based on the specific circumstances of the case and was not to be considered a precedent for other matters. Consequently, all appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The order was pronounced in the open court on 03/02/2021.