|
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0271 (Chen-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Where assessee was a senior citizen of 80 years and was suffering from multiple diseases and no person would be benefitted by filing its appeal late beyond the time prescribed by statute and there was no such allegation by Revenue that assessee filed its appeal late with CIT(A) deliberately with some ulterior motive, therefore, matter was remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Application for condonation of delay of 345 days - -
Assessee filed this appeal before Tribunal challenging the appellate order passed by CIT(A). Appellate proceedings had arisen before CIT(A) from penalty order passed by AO under section 271(1)(c). It was at the outset brought to notice of assessee that assessee filed its first appeal with CIT(A) late by 345 days beyond the time prescribed by section 249(2) for which assessee had sought for condonation of aforesaid delay of 345 days in filing this appeal before CIT(A), but CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Assessee stated that he was suffering from multiple diseases and was also hospitalized which prevented him from filing its appeal in time before CIT(A). Held: Assessee had shown that he was a senior citizen of 80 years and is suffering from multiple diseases. Normally, no person would be benefitted by filing its appeal late beyond the time prescribed by statute. There was no such allegation by Revenue that assessee filed its appeal late with CIT(A) deliberately with some ulterior motive. There was no reasons to disbelieve version of assessee rather assessee being a senior citizen of 80 years of age deserve liberal approach in condoning the delay in filing appeal late with CIT(A). Therefore, assessee had shown sufficient cause and matter was remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour by way of remand
A.Y. : 2009-10
IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|