|The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0232 (Asr-Trib) : (2021) 186 ITD 0454
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Where assessee claimed condonation of delay of 124 days in filing of appeal due to reason that appeal papers were prepared and handed over to Assistant of assessee's counsel for filling who failed to do so and ultimately appeal was filed belatedly, through another local counsel and such contention was also supported by affidavit, since assessee had demonstrated bona fide reason and sufficient cause for such delay, same was to be condoned.
Appeal (Tribunal) - Power of Tribunal - Condonation of delay of 124 days -
During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was observed that there was delay of 124 days in filling of the instant appeal, which was explained by the assessee by submitting that Chartered Accountant though prepared the appeal to be filed before ITAT and handed over the appeal papers to his Assistant for deposit of appeal fee and sending the same after getting signed from the assessee, however, it was later found that Assistant of assessee's counsel failed to deposit the appeal fee and also failed to file the appeal in the registry of the ITAT. Therefore, appeal got delayed in filling before the ITAT and consequently resulted into delay of 124 days in filling of appeal. Held: Though appeal was prepared and appeal papers have been handed over to Assistant of assessee's counsel for deposit of appeal fee and filling before ITAT after getting signed by the assessee, however, due to complete oversight, the same could not been done and ultimately filed belatedly and consequently resulted into delay of 124 days. Assessee had demonstrated the bona fide reasons and sufficient cause for non-filling of the appeal within the time limit. The contention of assessee was supported by affidavit and even could not find any material contrary and/or adverse to the claim of the assessee, therefore, explanation offered for delay of 124 days in filling of the instant appeal was bona fide, reasonable, sufficient and unintentional, hence, deserve to be condoned.
REFERRED : Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC) : 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1279 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008 (228) ELT 162 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(EX) 1737 (SC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT