Delay in Filing Income Tax Appeal Due to Personal Problems: ITAT Condones 99 Days Delay [Read Order]

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] and condoned a 99-day delay in filing appeals for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 to 2014-15 and directed that the appeal for AY 2017-18 be reconsidered after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Subrat Tarai (assessee) faced proceedings for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2017-18. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 as not maintainable due to late filing and rejected the assessee’s petitions for condonation of delay.

Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s orders, the assessee appealed to the ITAT. The assessee’s counsel argued that the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 was due to personal problems faced by the assessee, which prevented timely submission.

The counsel further contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for AY 2017-18 without providing a fair opportunity for representation. The Counsel requested condonation of the delay and restoration of all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The single-member bench, comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President), observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 in limine due to a 99-day delay without adequately considering the assessee’s reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had cited personal problems as the cause and expressed confidence in succeeding on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal stated that a liberal approach should be adopted in matters of condonation of delay to prevent meritorious cases from being dismissed on technical grounds citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

The bench held that refusing to condone the delay could defeat the cause of justice and that a pedantic or hyper-technical approach should be avoided. It also found that the CIT(A)’s ex-parte dismissal without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing was unjustified.

The bench set aside the CIT(A)’s orders and remanded all appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate them on merits after providing the assessee a fair opportunity to make submissions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

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