INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 254(1) Section 273B

Appeal [Tribunal] - Condonation of delay - Reasonable cause - Delay due to mistake of an employee

There was a delay of 655 days in filing present appeal before the ITAT, for which necessary application had been filed for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for such delay. AR submitted that the assessee could not file appeal within the prescribed time limit provided under the Act, for reasons beyond his control, due to the fact that the order of the CIT(A), dated 28-3-2014 was served at the residence of the assessee, which was unnoticed, because of negligence of an employee who was working at residence. Therefore, there was no deliberate intention not in filing appeal within the time allowed under the Act and hence, in interest of justice, the delay in filing appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be disposed-of on merits.Held: Tribunal had carefully considered reason given for not filing appeal within the due date provided under the Act, and found that reasons given by the assessee that he could not notice service of order from the office of the CIT(A) due to mistake of an employee working at residence appears to be reasonable and comes within the meaning of reasonable cause, as provided under section 273B. Further ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by filing an appeal late, rather it creates undue hardship to the litigant, because of tax demand. Therefore, when the assessee gives reasons, for not filing the appeal within the due date prescribed under the Act and such reasons were supported by necessary sworn affidavit, then merely for the reason of no supporting evidences, the contents of affidavit cannot be ignored. Further, refusing to condoned delay can result in merotious matter being thrown out the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated there was a reasonable cause for not filing appeal within the time limit provided under the Act, and hence, the delay in filing of appeal was condoned and appeal filed by the assessee was admitted for hearing.

Relied:Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) : 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1279 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamuthy (1998) 7 SSC 123.

REFERRED : Lahoti Overseas Ltd. v. Dy. CIT in ITA No. 3786/Mum/2012 and Dy. CIT v. Veena Industries Limited in [MA No. 67/PUN/2018 [Arising out of ITA No. 1904/PUN/2014] Assessment Year : 2010-11, dt. 4-2-2019].

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2010-11

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section69A Section 132(1) Section 132(4A)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT