INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 253(5)

Appeal (Tribunal) - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Non-communication of appellate order by the earlier counsel

Appeal filed by assessee before Tribunal was barred by limitation by 571 days. Assessee sought condonation of delay pleading that appellate order passed by CIT(A) was served upon earlier Counsel and he had failed to communicate/forward the same to assessee. Hence, assessee was not aware of fact of passing of order by CIT(A) and assessee came to know about the appellate order only when AO started penalty proceedings. Immediately, assessee applied for a copy of the order, but same was supplied after one year from the date of application. Immediately after receipt of the order, assessee preferred the instant appeal and the assessee should not be found fault with delay, since non-communication of order by earlier counsel was beyond the control of assessee, there was sufficient cause for assessee in preferring the appeal belatedly. Held: An assessee usually engages a counsel to advise him and also to deal with legal matters and hence, in the normal circumstances, assessee fully places his reliance on the counsel, due to domain expertise possessed by Counsel. In that situation, generally assessee should not be put in trouble for the mistake, if any, committed by a counsel. In the instant case, no material was brought on record by revenue to show that assessee was continuing to avail services of very same counsel even after noticing his lapse. Hence, reason given in the affidavit could not be considered to be a mala fide one and mistake on the part of the counsel constituted sufficient cause in matter relating to condonation of delay, therefore, delay was condoned.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2006-07

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT