P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Munka Dall & Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2) - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (20 Jul 2020)

If the cause of delay as explained by Assessee is found to be factually correct then, laps on part of Assessee cannot be a ground for rejecting condonation of delay

MANU/IJ/0110/2020

Direct Taxation

Present appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)), Jaipur. There is delay of 349 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It has been pleaded that, when the Assessee has explained a reasonable and bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal then the same may be condoned so as to decide the appeal of the Assessee on merits.

The Assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 25th January, 2018 subsequently, the appeal was transferred from the CIT(A)-II, Jaipur to CIT(A), Ajmer vide notification dated 25th September, 2018. In the mean time, the assessee sold the premises and sifted to new address.

After the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), Ajmer, the Assessee never appeared and attended the proceedings and consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was decided by impugned ex-parte order. The Assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal that the assessee has not received the impugned order and came to know about the same only when the order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12th March, 2020 was served upon the assessee at the new address through the process server of the Department.

There is no dispute about the fact that, because of the failure on the part of the Assessee to intimate the new address to the CIT(A), the notices issued by the CIT(A) as well as impugned order could not be received by the Assessee. Thus, explanation of non receipt of the impugned order by the Assessee is factually correct however, the reason for such non receipt of the impugned order is the failure on the part of the Assessee to give the fresh address to the CIT(A). Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, when the CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee vide impugned ex-parte order, the delay in filing the appeal is due to mistake on the part of the Assessee which cannot be regarded as a deliberate or willful default on the part of the assessee.

It is settled proposition of law that, if the cause of delay as explained by the assessee is found to be factual correct then laps on the part of the Assessee cannot be a ground for rejecting the condonation of delay. The cause of substantial justice has to be preferred then the technical consideration. Therefore, even if there is lapse or inaction on the part of the Assessee a justice oriented liberal approach has to be taken while considering the condonation of delay. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the delay of 349 days is condoned subject to cost.

When notices issued by the CIT(A) at the old address and the assessee has already sifted to the new address then considering the facts and circumstance of the case as well as in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   DELAY   CONDONATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved