INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 253(5)

Appeal (Tribunal) - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - No mala fide on assessee's part

There was a delay in filing of the appeal before Tribunal. As per applicable statutory provisions, the appeal should have been filed by 1-4-2016. However, the appeal was actually filed on 1-4-2019. In support of request made for condonation of delay affidavit was filed. It was submitted that assessee had authorised Anil Kumar and Arpit Verma, CA for representation of cases before CIT(A). All the notices and appellate orders were received by Authorised representative themselves. In January 2016, Disputes regarding Property arose between assessee and others and Police Complaints were filed against assessee. Due to the Police Complaints, assessee was facing trauma mentally, financially as well as from society as he was under constant questionnaire not only from Police Department but was also facing unawkward and unpleasan0t relationships in society, as the public at large got aware of proceedings due to news published in Newspaper. This huge stress drained reputation of assessee socially and daily humiliation compelled assessee to leave the town, (where he resided during appellate proceedings), and went along with his family to his Sister, residing in Hisaar, Haryana in February 2016. Moreover, health of assessee also deteriorated during said period. The assessee returned back to His residence in Haridwar in 2019 and when Income Tax Department started following up for recovery of outstanding demand then assessee came to know that there was an appellate order passed by CIT(A), against which Appeal before ITAT was to be filed. Assessee then availed services of Mr. Romal Jain, CA (from Dehradun) to file a belated appeal with ITAT. In this regard a Power of Attorney was issued to Mr. Romal Jain on 25-3-2019. Appeal was then redrafted by Mr. Romal Jain, CA in March 2019 was finally filed with office of ITAT in Delhi on 1-4-2019.Held: Assessee had been vigilant in his approach and had not neglected the income-tax proceedings. Assessee has been able to demonstrate sufficient reasons, in the shape of approaching wrong remedy, for filing appeal before Tribunal. No mala fide could be attributed to the delay and delay was, therefore, condoned.

Relied:SLP [Civil No.12980 of 1986, decided on 19-2-1987, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1279 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2011-12

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 271(1)(c)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT