9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not decided the issue on merit, we therefore by considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to set aside these cases back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to be decided afresh. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007-08, the only difference is in the amount of penalty levied by the A.O. From the above grounds it would be clear that the grievance of the assessee relates to the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), since the additions were made while passing the assessment under section 153 A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The appeal filed before the Ld. CIT (A) was belated and the assessee furnished the application for condonation of delay stating therein as under: "Mukesh mittal (herein after referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order as under: "The penalty order in this case was passed on 27.03.2015 and received on 30.03.2015 and the appellant had to file the appeal within one month of receipt of the order . However, the appeal was filed on 12.01.2018, thus delayed by more than 32 months. The submissions of the appellant cannot be accepted as the appellant had guidance of legal professionals and mistake by counsel not to file appeal cannot be accepted as reason for condonation of delay in the case of the appellant. It has been held by the various courts that condonation of delay can be looked into if the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of his appeal. Further, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No. 37 to 39/Chd/2018 for the A.Y. 2005-06 to 2007-08 wherein a similar delay has been condoned vide order dt. 05/11/2018. However, the said order was not available to the Ld. CIT (A) as the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT (A) earlier than the said order dt. 05/11/2018. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT (A) had not decided the issue on merit, we therefore by considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to set aside these cases back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to be decided afresh, after considering the aforesaid referred to order of the ITAT and decide the issue in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, both the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
