ITAT condones Delay of 9 Years in filing Appeal since Assessee was Imprisoned for 9 Years [Read Order]

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench has condoned the delay of 9 years in filing an appeal since the assessee was imprisoned for 9 years.

The appellant, Mr.  Mahendra Kumar Goyal appeared before the first appellate authority against the imposition of Rs. 10,000/- as a penalty under section 271 (1)(b). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal alleging that there is an inordinate delay of 9 years in filing the appeal by the assessee on the issue of demand raised as well as the penalty amount.

The aggrieved appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT and submitted that was imprisoned in jail under a serious criminal offence which was beyond his control to file the appeal in time for adjudication of the case before the CIT(A). Hence, prayed that the delay of approximately 9 years be condoned given the gravity and situation of the case and the appeal of the assessee should be adjudicated upon afresh by the CIT(A) on merit.

The Tribunal observed that because of involvement in criminal offences mentioned above and judicial custody, the assessee was not aware of Incomes taxes hovering upon him. The Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy has observed that “It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor”.

The Coram of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM, and Mr. Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, AM by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in N Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy has held that “the delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh decision on merit as to the issue penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act but by providing the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee”.

Advocate Mr. Saurabh Harsh and Smt. Runi Pal appeared on behalf of the appellant and respondent respectively.

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