The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Kolkata Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, refused to condone delay of 329 days on the ground of unavailability of tax consultant and illness of grandson, as the same were not proved by the assessee.
The afore said observation was made by the Kolkata ITAT, when appeals were filed before it by the assessee, as against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol, dated 02.07.2019 passed for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
With no one appearing on behalf of the assessee in spite of multiple notices being send in this regard, the ITAT Bench concluded the hearing Ex-Parte qua the assessee, while it was pointed out by the Registry that both the appeals were time barred by 329 days.
The ITAT, having gone through the record carefully, with the assistance of Smt. Ranu Biswas, the Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R., observed:
“Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Honorable High Court as well as before the Honorable Supreme Court, then, Honorable Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression
is to be used liberally.”
“We do not deem it necessary to re-cite orrecapitulate the proposition laid down in otherdecisions. It is suffice to say that the Honble Courts areunanimous in their approach to propound that wheneverthe reasons assigned by an applicant forexplaining thecondonation of delay, then such reasons are to beconstrued with a justice-oriented approach”, relying upon the decisions of the apex court inthe case of Collector LandAcquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others, as well as in the case of N. Balakrisknan Vs. M. Krishnamurtky, the ITAT Bench further noted.
Adding to the same, the ITAT Panel comprising of Manish Borad, the Accountant Member, along with Rajpal Yadav, the Vice-President (KZ), commented:
“In the light of above, we have examined the explanation given by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the impugned orders were passed on 02.07.2019. Its effect was given by the ld. Assessing Officer on 23.08.2019. According to the assessee, the order was served upon him but was misplaced and found on26.10.2019, but thereafter the assessee has filed the appeal on25.09.2020. As far as the delay attributable to COVID period from March, 2020 is concerned, it is not to be counted and it is to be condoned. However, there is hardly specific any explanation by the assessee for the period August, 2019 upto March, 2020.”
Thus, dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the Kolkata ITAT held:
“The only explanation given in the application above is that sometime the Tax Consultant was not available to the assessee or illness of his Grandson. No affidavit in support of the delayed filing of appeals is filed. No other medical document in support of illness is being filed. Therefore, we do not deem it fit to condone the delay in filing these appeals. These appeals are dismissed being time-barred.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
