2012 (10) TMI 355 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's Appeal Partly Allowed on Loss Disallowance, Penalty Deleted, Delay in Filing Appeals Condoned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-VI (1), Chennai Versus M/s. SAAG RR Infra Ltd.,

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal on the disallowance of loss on sale of assets, remitting the matter for further verification. The delay ... Condoned the delay in filing of Appeal with CIT – Delay of 458 days – Held that:- Following the decision in case of Ram Nath Sao & Ors Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002 (2) TMI 1280 - SUPREME COURT) that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper-technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and /or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. - Delay condoned. Issues:1. Delay in filing cross objection by the assessee.2. Condonation of delay in filing cross objection.3. Disallowance of loss on sale of assets.4. Condonation of delay in filing appeal by the Revenue.5. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A).Issue 1: Delay in filing cross objection by the assesseeThe assessee filed a cross objection with a delay of 94 days, seeking condonation. The Tribunal reviewed the affidavit explaining the delay and found it to be genuine, leading to the condonation of the delay in the interest of justice and equity.Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing cross objectionThe Tribunal examined the reasons provided by the assessee for the 458-day delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) had already condoned the delay after considering the facts and circumstances. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on accepting explanations, the Tribunal upheld the condonation, emphasizing that refusal should be an exception when no negligence or lack of bonafide intent is evident.Issue 3: Disallowance of loss on sale of assetsThe Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer regarding a claimed loss on the sale of assets. The Tribunal noted that the matter involved a significant amount and complex facts. It remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification, directing a review of whether the claimed bad debts were part of the billed amount from a specific company. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.Issue 4: Condonation of delay in filing appeal by the RevenueThe Revenue filed an appeal with a delay of 39 days, providing detailed justifications for the delay. The Tribunal accepted the reasons as valid and condoned the delay, allowing the appeal for further consideration on its merits.Issue 5: Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A)The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars. As the main issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification, the penalty was deemed baseless, leading to its deletion. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal on the disallowance of loss on sale of assets, remitting the matter for further verification. The delay in filing appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue was condoned, with the cross objection by the assessee being dismissed as infructuous. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.