The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)condoned the delay in filing an appeal by the assessee due to ongoing rectification efforts and the death of its Chartered Accountant(CA) and restored the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh hearing.
Shree Sejal Tower Co-operative Housing Society Limited,the appellant-assessee, filed its return of income on March 22, 2016, for the assessment year 2015-16, reporting a total income of Rs. Nil after claiming a deduction of Rs. 940,943 under Section 80P(2)(d).
The return was processed, and the Centralized Processing Centre(CPC) passed an order under Section 143(1) of the Act on June 30, 2016, assessing the income at Rs. 940,490. Dissatisfied with the outcome, an appeal was lodged with the CIT(A), who dismissed it based on the rejection of the condonation of delay application.
Get a Copy of Common Mode of Tax Evasion, Click here
The assessee brought the matter before the Tribunal, contending that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of the delay in filing.
The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the material on record. The Authorised Representative(AR) argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based solely on the delay, without considering that efforts were being made to rectify the issue, and requested that the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative(DR) contended that no sufficient cause had been demonstrated to justify condoning the delay and supported the CIT(A)’s decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had e-filed its first appeal on October 26, 2023, against the order passed under Section 143(1) with a delay of 2,330 days. After excluding 705 days due to the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 order, the remaining delay was 1,625 days.
Get a Copy of Common Mode of Tax Evasion, Click here
The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay, but the tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should not be denied over technicalities. The assessee explained that it had pursued rectification under Section 143(1) in good faith and also cited the death of its CA in 2017 as a reason for the delay. In view of these circumstances, the bench deemed it just to condone the delay.
The two member bench Sunil Kumar Singh(Judicial Member) and BR Baskaran (Accountant Member)allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated February 9, 2024. They condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merit, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
