2024 (9) TMI 361 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority - as submitted that the notices and the orders were received only on email of Ex-Accountant and there was no direct physical communication to the assessee from the department. As the Ex-Accountant did not inform the assessee in time, this led to delay in filing of the appeal - HELD THAT - JCIT(A) did not consider the fact that majority part of the delay was covered by the Covid pandemic period. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER has ordered that period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation under any general or special law in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. In view of this judgment, JCIT(A) is directed to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from the period of delay on the part of the assessee. Considering the fact that the matter was not adjudicated on the merits, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-consideration. He may take a lenient view in the delay caused by the assessee in filing of the appeal before him after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as discussed above. He may also decide the matter on the merits of the case after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and not to seek any adjournment without any pressing reason. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The main issue raised in the appeal was the rejection of the appellant's request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant argued that the delay was genuine, bonafide, and non-deliberate, and requested the Tribunal to direct the JCIT(A) to allow the condonation of delay to ensure justice. The appellant cited various legal precedents emphasizing that a pedantic approach should not be adopted while considering such requests. The appellant highlighted that the delay had resulted in a meritorious matter being dismissed at the threshold, defeating the cause of justice. The appellant stressed that the authorities should prioritize substantial justice over technical considerations and should adopt a justice-oriented approach.

The brief facts of the case revealed that the assessee did not file the income tax return for the relevant assessment year. The case was reopened by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information regarding the assessee's transactions. The assessment was completed, and the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 434 days in filing it. The appellant then approached the Appellate Tribunal challenging the dismissal.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant's representative explained that the delay was primarily due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the actual delay attributable to the assessee was only 49 days. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee and noted that a significant portion of the delay fell within the period excluded by a Supreme Court judgment due to the pandemic. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the JCIT(A) to exclude the pandemic period from the delay calculation and reconsider the matter on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the JCIT(A) and instructed the appellant to comply with the directions without unnecessary adjournments.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the JCIT(A)'s decision and remanding the matter back for re-consideration on both the delay issue and the merits of the case. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that the appellant's rights were upheld while balancing technical considerations.