The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has condoned the delay of 601 days on filing income tax appeal citing there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the appeal.
The tribunal bench quoted the observation of Justice Krishna Iyer that “any interpretation that alludes substantive justice is not to be followed and that substantive justice must always prevail over procedural technicalities”.
The assessee, Shri Devendragouda Channavirgouda Hiregoudra, filed an appeal against an order passed by the NFAC, Delhi. The representative of the assessee explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to not having access to the email address listed in Form 35, where all notices and the impugned order were sent by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
Ready to Grow? Choose a Course That Fits Your Goals!
It was noted that after the assessee changed their auditor, they were informed about the ex-parte order issued by the CIT(A). The representative of the assessee explained that the assessee promptly approached the current authorized representative (AR) and subsequently filed an appeal with the Tribunal.
The representative argued that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the notices forwarded to the previous tax consultant were being appropriately addressed. Therefore, he requested that the delay be condoned, asserting that there was no malafide mistake or intention on the part of the assessee causing the delay in filing the present appeal.
The income tax department’s representative opposed the condonation but suggested that the issue should be decided on its merits.
Ready to Grow? Choose a Course That Fits Your Goals!
The bench of members Chandra Poojari (Accountant) and Beena Pillai (Judicial), after reviewing the affidavit filed by the assessee, found no evidence of malafide intention. It acknowledged the assessee’s lack of awareness about the ex-parte appellate order and deemed the reason for the delay as reasonable.
It mentioned that “In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it strictly, the fact remains that, considering such technicalities will not advance the cause of justice.”
Ready to Grow? Choose a Course That Fits Your Goals!
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, the tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay. The income tax tribunal noted that procedural technicalities should not impede the cause of justice. Consequently, the bench condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
Balram R. Rao, Advocate and Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Dept. appeared for the appellants and respondent’s respectively.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
