No Malafide Intention in not Filing Appeals before CIT(A) within Limitation: ITAT condones 112- Day Delay [Read Order]

In a recent case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Bangalore condoned the delay  in filing appeals before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by an assessee, noting that the delay was caused not out of malafide intention but due to misguidance from the assessee’s tax consultant.

The case involved the delay in filing two appeals before the CIT(A) of Banglore for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2018-19.

The appeals submitted by the assessee, M/s. Arjuna Souhardha Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha,was delayed by 112 days.

Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules, Click here

The CIT(A)  refused to condone this delay and thereby dismissed the appeals.

Aggrieved, the assessee appealed against the decision before the ITAT.

Before the Tribunal, the Counsel for assessee explained that the 112-day delay was resulted from the assessee’s reliance on incorrect advice from a former authorized representative, who had incorrectly advised that no appeal to the CIT(A) was possible as there was no redressal mechanism for the assessee's case.

Later, the assessee sought advice from a different tax consultant, who correctly advised filing an appeal, and in turn the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A) but by then the delay had occurred.

Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules, Click here

The counsel argued that this delay was not due to any malafide intention but was caused by the need to correct previous misguidance.

Upon review of the facts of the case, the division bench comprising Ms Beena Pillai and Mr Lakshmi Prasad Sahu, observed that the delay in fact, had a reasonable cause and was not attributable to any fault on the part of the assessee.

The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., which supports a flexible interpretation of "sufficient cause" to ensure substantial justice.

Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules, Click here

In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court opined that by condoning delays, courts can allow cases to proceed to a decision on their merits, thereby promoting the ultimate goal of justice. This approach recognized that litigants generally do not benefit from filing appeals late and that dismissing meritorious cases due to delays can defeat justice.

In light of the Supreme Court's observations and on examination of the case at hand, the tribunal held that procedural technicalities should not obstruct justice and thus decided to condone the delay and allowed the appeals to be considered on their merits

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