| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2998 (Jp-Trib) : (2020) 207 TTJ 0029 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 250
Where cause of delay as explained by assessee was found to be factual correct then laps on part of assessee, could not be a ground for rejecting condonation of delay and thus, in interest of justice, delay of 349 days was condoned subject to cost of Rs. 2500.
|
Appeal (CIT(A) - Maintainability - Condonation of delay of 349 days in filing appeal -
Assessee sought condonation of delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) pleading that notices issued by CIT(A) after case was transferred from CIT(A), Jaipur, to CIT(A), Ajmer, was not received by assessee due to reason that it sold its factory premises and consequently address of assessee was changed. Held: There was no dispute about fact that because of failure on part of assessee to intimate its new address to CIT(A), notices issued by CIT(A) as well as order could not be received by assessee. Explanation of non receipt of order by assessee was factually correct, however, reason for such non receipt of was failure on part of assessee to give fresh address to CIT(A). Therefore, when CIT(A) decided appeal vide ex-parte order, delay in filing the appeal was due to mistake on part of assessee, which could not be regarded as a deliberate or willful default on its part. It is settled proposition of law 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. In interest of justice, delay of 349 days was condoned subject to cost of Rs. 2500.
REFERRED : Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 2395 of 2008 dated 26-6-2010] Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4355 (Bom-HC)
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. : 2010-11
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|