9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CIT(A). The appellant should have taken care to ensure that the appeal is correctly filed with the office of the CIT(A). Although, we are satisfied that there was a mistake / error on the part of appellant in filing it with the wrong office, the appellant has not been able to explain the delay between 23rd March, 2010 to 12th May, 2011 i.e. the period when it addressed a communication to the CIT(A) for hearing of its appeal till the date it requested the AO to transfer the appeal to CIT(A). The explanation stated across the bar is that it was pursuing its appeal but no particulars are given. Therefore, although we set aside orders dated 4th September, 2013 of the Tribunal and 4th August, 2011 of the CIT(A) and restore the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are as under : (a) On 31st December, 2007, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, relating to the subject assessment year determining the appellant's income at ₹ 1.11 crores. Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee prepared an appeal in the proforma Form No.35 for filing appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)]. However, by mistake instead of the appeal being filed in the office of the CIT(A), it was filed on 8th February, 2008 (within the period of limitation) with the office of the Assessing Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax10 (3), who accepted the same. (b) The appellant had thereafter on 19th August, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) by his order dated 4th August, 2011, rejected the appeal for condonation of delay and did not admit the appeal for consideration. (e) Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after citing various decisions of the Courts indicating the manner in which the application for condonation of delay have to be dealt with proceeded to reject the appeal. Thus, upholding the order of the CIT(A) inter alia on the ground that the appellant was represented by a Chartered Accountant and, therefore, they ought to have been more vigilant. Further, noting the fact that as in nature, the consequences of inaction have to be faced, so also in human conduct as under : We have avoided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to the office of the CIT(A) as would be expected of the State no delay would have taken place. This would have resulted in the appeal being considered on merits. Further, from the application made for stay on 19th August, 2008 as well as from the order dated 12th November, 2008 passed thereon, it is very clear that the appellant as well as the department bonafide proceeded on the basis that its appeal before the CIT(A) is pending. The lapse on the part of the assessee was unintentional. Further, the analogy made in the impugned order with nature is inappropriate. Human interaction is influenced by human nature. Inherent in human nature is the likelihood of error. Therefore, the adage to err is human . Thus, the power to condone delay w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
