2021 (3) TMI 155 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay against intimation u/s 200A - levy of late filing fee passed under section 234E - HELD THAT - Assessee was not aware in time the levy of late filing fee passed under section 234E of the Act since the intimation was communicated by e-mail, which were unnoticed by the employees and only after receipt of notice dated 09.10.2018 for all the above assessment years, the receipt of intimation was brought to the notice of the assessee. Therefore, after consulting income tax practitioners/Advocates, the assessee preferred appeals with delay before the ld. CIT(A). Under the above facts and circumstances and in view of the legal position, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we set aside the common order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the appeals for all the assessment years under appeal on merits after giving sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by the assessee were against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the mentioned assessment years. The main contention raised was the delay in filing the appeals, with the appellant arguing that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control. The appellant explained that the intimation under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was communicated via email, which went unnoticed by the employees until a notice was received later. The appellant filed an affidavit before the Commissioner explaining the reasons for the delay, emphasizing that it was not willful but inadvertent. The Departmental Representative opposed condoning the delay, citing lack of proper evidence to support the appellant's claims.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal noted that the delay was not due to willful negligence on the part of the assessee. The tribunal highlighted the legal principle that the expression 'sufficient cause' in the Limitation Act allows for a liberal approach to be adopted in condoning delays to ensure substantive rights are not defeated. Quoting a Supreme Court case, the tribunal emphasized that the length of delay is not determinative; the acceptability of the explanation provided is crucial. The tribunal underscored that the primary function of the court is to advance substantial justice, and rules of limitation are designed to prevent dilatory tactics rather than destroy parties' rights.

In light of the circumstances and legal principles, the tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a fresh adjudication of the appeals on merits, ensuring the appellant receives a fair hearing. The tribunal stressed the importance of balancing substantial justice with technical considerations and acknowledged the need to compensate the opposite party for any losses incurred due to the delay.

Ultimately, the tribunal allowed all the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that legal remedies are kept alive within a legislatively fixed period while advancing the cause of substantial justice.