2022 (5) TMI 168 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay of 49 days - HELD THAT - CIT(A) simply brushed aside the reasons filed by the assessee for delay in filing appeal, by stating the appellant has taken the vague and unsupported plea for the delay and which is not verifiable from the records. The appellant has not submitted any evidence either along with the appeal or during appellate proceedings . CIT(A) did not specifically point out any mala-fide intention on part of the assessee which could be attributed to the delay in filing the appeal. Moreover, we also note that even if the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is rejected, even then the ld. CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on the merits and should not have summarily dismissed the assessee s appeal on account of mere 49 days delay in filing appeal, without deciding the appeal on merits. There is no allegation to the effect that the assessee acted in a mala-fide manner. Further, Ld. CIT (A) has not brought anything on record as to how the assessee would stand to gain by not filing the appeal in time. There is a minor delay of 43 days, for which, in our view, the assessee has given a plausible explanation. In the assessment framed on the assessee, Ld. Assessing Officer has made a huge addition of 33,00,000/- as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. The assessee, in our view, should not be precluded an opportunity of hearing merits, simply on account of a delay of mere 49 days in filing appeal. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Condonation of delay - Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without considering merits.

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Condonation of delay

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad, for the assessment year 2011-12. The delay in filing the appeal was 49 days beyond the prescribed period. The assessee cited reasons for the delay, stating reliance on a consultant who advised against appealing the order initially. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the lack of reasonable or sufficient cause preventing timely appeal filing. The CIT(A) referred to judicial pronouncements highlighting the need for a bonafide delay without negligence. The CIT(A) concluded that the vague and unsupported plea for delay was not verifiable from records, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2: Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without considering merits

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal without addressing the reasons submitted by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not specifically point out any mala-fide intention on the part of the assessee causing the delay. The ITAT highlighted that even if the application for condonation of delay was rejected, the CIT(A) should have proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits. The ITAT referred to legal precedents emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations, urging a liberal approach in condoning delays to prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed. The ITAT concluded that the delay should be condoned, and the matter should be restored to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal, condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the matter to the first appellate authority for a decision on the merits. The judgment highlighted the need for a balanced approach in considering delays in legal proceedings, focusing on substantial justice and ensuring litigants are not deprived of their right to a fair hearing.