2021 (8) TMI 437 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 350 days in filling appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - The reasons assigned by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal is that the impugned order dated passed by the CIT (Appeals) was delivered to the assessee some time in the September 2015 and immediately after receipt of the said order, the assessee had supplied the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the office of the Auditor so far as to take action for filing of an appeal. It is the case of the assessee that the aforesaid order was not brought to the notice of the Chartered Accountant namely Rajendra Karnavat by his staff, and the same remained in his office files without any action. The appellant thereupon made an enquiry and learnt about the fact on 7.10.2016 that the appeal has not been filed and the appellant took action to contact another Chartered Accountant and filed the appeal thereon. The appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case should not suffer on account of inadvertence on the part of her Chartered Accountant. Thus, assessee has made out sufficient cause to condone the delay of 310 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, Dismissal of appeal without adjudicating specific grounds, Setting aside intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, Condoning delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Assessing officer's treatment of return as defective.

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 310 days. The appellant argued that there was sufficient cause for the delay, attributing it to inadvertence on the part of the Chartered Accountant. The Court considered the explanation provided by the appellant and held that the delay was justifiable. Citing legal principles, the Court emphasized the need for a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the order of the Tribunal was quashed.

2. Dismissal of appeal without adjudicating specific grounds:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without addressing the specific grounds raised by the appellant on the merits of the matter. The Court found this action to be unjustified and emphasized the importance of adjudicating on the grounds raised by the appellant. The failure to consider the specific grounds was deemed as a flaw in the Tribunal's decision-making process.

3. Setting aside intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act:
The appellant contested the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, which computed the income at a higher amount than the returned income. The Tribunal's failure to set aside this intimation was questioned. The Court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment, but it was one of the substantial questions of law admitted for consideration.

4. Condoning delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was rejected due to the delay. The Court, after considering the circumstances and explanation provided by the appellant, found that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. This issue was intertwined with the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and was resolved in favor of the appellant.

5. Assessing officer's treatment of return as defective:
The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer should have treated the return as defective and allowed time for rectification before assessing the income. The Court did not delve into this issue in detail in the judgment, but it was one of the substantial questions of law raised for consideration.

In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the Tribunal's order, condoning the delay, and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering sufficient cause for delays and ensuring that appeals are adjudicated based on the specific grounds raised by the appellant.

← Previous Next →