In an assessee-favoring ruling, the Madras High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, has condoned delay beyond the period provided in the Statute.
The petitioner could not file the appeal against the original order within the prescribed time since the jurisdiction got bifurcated in the meantime. Later, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same on the ground that there is a delay of 25 days, over and above the condonable period of 30 days.
On behalf of the petitioner-assessee, Advocate Akhil Suresh contended that the delay was on account of such bifurcation of jurisdiction and the confusion caused in the mind of the petitioner with regard to the actual Appellate Authority before whom such appeal has to be filed. The petitioner, therefore, sought for a further direction to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay.
Justice K Ravichandrabaabu observed that there is no dispute to the fact that the Order-in-Original passed against the petitioner dated 27.04.2017 has indicated that an appeal shall lie before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai.
Quashing the impugned order, the Court said that “Therefore, I find justifiable reasons to believe that the petitioner would have approached the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, in time, and thereafter, filed the appeal before the first respondent, however, with the delay as stated supra. Since the first respondent has rejected the appeal only on the reason that the same was time-barred, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, I am of the view that the valuable statutory right of appeal provided to the petitioner cannot be denied on the simple reason that the said appeal was filed with meager delay of 25 days. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first respondent to consider the appeal and pass orders on the same in accordance with law,” the Court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
