9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be accepted that there occurred a lack of proper advice upon him in the matter of preferring the appeal against the order of the CIT, before the Tribunal under Section 253(1)(c). Hence, we are of the view that it is not a case where the appellant had not shown any cause at all to condone the delay. The sufficiency of the cause shown by the appellant is a matter to be weighed on the scales of justice, which the Tribunal had virtually failed to do. Therefore, there exist a substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal had acted in accordance with law while it refused to condone the delay, at least in terms of cost. We are satisfied that there is failure in this regard on the part of the Tribunal. Consequently, the said question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Heard counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. 3. Based on the contentions raised, this Court framed the substantial questions of law as follows: i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting Annexure H application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against Annexure E order of the Commissioner of Income Tax without going into the merits of the case as well as the bona fide reasons adduced for not prosecuting parallel proceedings? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting Annexure H a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram. It is specifically mentioned that the assessee was under the impression that he need only to challenge the assessment order before the CIT (Appeals). But, after getting proper legal advice, he realised that the order of the CIT under Section 263 has to be challenged before the Tribunal in appeal. Therefore the appeal in question was filed with a delay of 439 days. 6. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, observed that it is not a case where the assessee was not assisted by a professional in filing the returns of his income or in representing the matters before the Assessing Officer or before the Appellate Authorities. The Tribunal found that, the assessee is a senior Neuro Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law framed, because the matter need to be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the appeal on its merits. In the result, the above appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.489/Coch/2010 is hereby set aside. The delay occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned, subject to the condition of the appellant paying cost of an amount of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Department, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On noticing such remittance, the Tribunal is directed to restore the appeal on its files and to allow the application seeking condonation of delay and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
