Delay in Filing Appeal Due to Multiple PANs: ITAT Restores Case to AO for Fresh Hearing [Read Order]

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored a case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh hearing after the assessee, faced delays in filing its appeal due to multiple Permanent Account Number (PAN)s.

Datanet Ecommerce Service Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,was assigned two PANs since AY 2002-03. The assessee filed its income tax return under PAN No. AABCD 6820 D, while the second PAN (AABCD 4524 E) remained inactive. Due to an error, the second PAN was used when applying for the GST number, leading to GST returns for April 2022 being filed under this PAN.

Law and Procedure for Filing of Appeals

However, the assessee paid advance tax for AY 2021-22 (Rs. 10,00,000) and AY 2022-23 (Rs. 35,00,000) under the first PAN. The assessee applied for a challan correction with the jurisdictional AO, but it was still pending. Following advice, the assessee filed an appeal under Section 250 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)], but the appeal was dismissed due to delay and lack of prosecution.

The assessee aggrieved by the order appealed before the tribunal.

The assessee's counsel explained that there was a delay of 404 days for AY 2021-22 and 201 days for AY 2022-23 in filing the appeal. The delay was not intentional but due to genuine reasons.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey(Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar(Accountant Member) reviewed the order of the CIT(A) and found that both appeals were dismissed due to delay and non-appearance of the assessee. After considering the affidavit submitted by the assessee, it examined various rulings of the Apex Court, particularly in the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], where it was reaffirmed that the term "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be interpreted liberally to promote substantial justice, as long as there is no negligence or lack of bona fides.

Law and Procedure for Filing of Appeals

Additionally, the appellate tribunal referenced the decision in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], which stated that the acceptability of the explanation for the delay is the key factor in determining whether to condone it, irrespective of the delay's length.

The bench also noted that a refusal to condone delay could prevent a party from presenting their case, and that the primary goal of the court is to ensure substantial justice by allowing a broad interpretation of "sufficient cause."

In light of these considerations, the tribunal decided to allow the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO. The matter was therefore restored to the file of the AO, who was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates