2024 (7) TMI 1473 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order u/s 143(1) - delay on 1190 days in filling the appeal - conclusion of the learned CIT(Appeals) leading to the dismissal of the appeal is that the appellant s rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act against order u/s 143(1) dated 14/01/2016 was already discharged by the AO and rejected by the order dated 14/03/2016 - HELD THAT - As in order u/s 154 appellant has furnished the Application for Rectification u/s 154 dated 20.06.2016. Since this application under Section 154 of the Act was pending as on the date of the affidavit in support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the appellant was fully justified in contending that the application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act is pending. In fact subsequently, the appellant has received an Intimation dated 19.03.2020 from the CPC saying that the Return of Income for the above year is transferred to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for necessary action. This justifies that condonation of delay the application supported with affidavit. It is also to be noted that the said Application for Rectification u/s 154 of the Act is still pending with the learned jurisdictional AO. Thus we are of considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal was for good and sufficient reasons as the appellant was pursuing another remedy with all bonafides. Appeal allowed. CIT(A) shall condone that delay in filing the appeal and after giving, an opportunity of hearing on merits, decide the issue on merits.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order dated 23.09.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi; Denial of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A/Section 80GGA; Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a charitable trust, appealed against the denial of deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act for donations paid to eligible trusts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal citing substantial delay in filing and lack of reasonable cause. The appellant contended that the delay was not deliberate and relied on legal precedents to support the condonation of delay.

2. The Commissioner observed discrepancies in the appellant's claim regarding the pendency of a rectification petition under Section 154 of the Act. The Commissioner noted that the rectification petition had been rejected by the Assessing Officer on 14/03/2016, contrary to the appellant's claim of its pendency. The Commissioner concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on legal technicalities.

3. The appellant, through its authorized representative, argued that factual information in the Paper-book had been overlooked, leading to the dismissal. The appellant presented evidence of the rectification application under Section 154 of the Act, which was still pending with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The appellant received an intimation confirming the transfer of the Return of Income to the Assessing Officer for necessary action, supporting the contention of pursuing another remedy with bonafides.

4. The Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal and provide an opportunity for a hearing on the merits of the case. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's pursuit of another remedy through the pending rectification application, justifying the delay in filing the appeal.

5. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering all factual information and legal remedies pursued by the appellant before dismissing an appeal based on technical grounds. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the need for a fair and thorough assessment of the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal, ensuring that the appellant's rights are upheld in accordance with the principles of natural justice and legal precedents.

6. The judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the significance of justifying delays in legal proceedings, especially in matters concerning tax deductions and appeals against tax assessments. The Tribunal's decision reflects a balanced approach to addressing technicalities while upholding the appellant's right to a fair hearing and consideration of all relevant factors in tax disputes.