2015 (9) TMI 950 - AT - Income Tax

Addressing delay in filing appeal, ITAT Mumbai directs CIT(A) to reconsider disallowances on lease, license, stamp duty, PF, ESIC. (A)

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai addressed the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A), condoning the unintentional delay due to logistical challenges ... Condonation of delay - non admission of appeal by the CIT(A) on the ground that there was delay in filing of first appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A) by 72 days - Held that:- In the matter of condonation of delay, the primary object which is to be seen is that, it should not destroy the rights of the party for a legal remedy. The word “sufficient cause” has to be construed liberally because primary function of the appellate authority or court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for filing the appeals is to see where there is dilatory tactics by the parties or to seek their remedy promptly. Considering the reasons set out for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) that, the company commenced its operations in A.Y. 2008-09 itself and assessee’s operations were located in and around Lucknow and, therefore, it was difficult to organize the logistics in the initial period. The Senior Manager, Finance, who was responsible and entrusted with the Income Tax matters had quit the job on 15.12.2010, i.e. immediately after the passing of the assessment order. The new incumbent was not aware of such a statutory time limit and, therefore, immediately when the management in Bombay came to know about such a delay, took immediate steps for filing the appeal, CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the assessee’s appeal as not admitted on the ground that it is barred by limitation. In the facts ofthe assessee’s case, we condone the delay of 72 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits and in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) | Disallowance of lease agreement registration | Disallowance of factory license fees | Disallowance of stamp duty on share certificates | Disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund | Disallowance of employees' contribution to ESICDelay in filing appeal before CIT(A):The appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 05.04.2013 by CIT(A)-20, Mumbai, for the assessment under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2008-09. The delay of 72 days in filing the appeal was explained due to logistical challenges in Lucknow, attrition rate of skilled professionals, and the sudden resignation of the Senior Manager Finance. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal citing lack of sufficient cause. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and relied on legal precedents to support the contention. The Tribunal held that the delay should be condoned as there was no deliberate delay, ensuring the right to a legal remedy is not destroyed. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for further consideration on merits.Disallowance of lease agreement registration:The appellant challenged the disallowance of lease agreement registration of Rs. 52,02,000. The Tribunal did not address this issue specifically in the judgment but directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits upon the appeal restoration.Disallowance of factory license fees:The disallowance of factory license fees amounting to Rs. 24,750 was one of the grounds raised by the appellant. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment but instructed the CIT(A) to reconsider it on merits following the appeal restoration.Disallowance of stamp duty on share certificates:The disallowance of stamp duty of Rs. 5,99,950 paid on the issue of share certificates was contested by the appellant. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue specifically but directed the CIT(A) to reexamine it on merits after the appeal restoration.Disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund:The appellant disputed the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund. While the Tribunal did not elaborate on this issue in the judgment, it instructed the CIT(A) to review and decide on the matter following the appeal restoration.Disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC:The disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC was another ground raised by the appellant. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue but directed the CIT(A) to address it on merits after the appeal restoration.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai addressed the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) due to logistical challenges and the sudden resignation of a key employee. The Tribunal held that the delay was unintentional and should be condoned to ensure the right to a legal remedy is preserved. The specific grounds raised by the appellant regarding various disallowances were not individually analyzed by the Tribunal, which directed the CIT(A) to reconsider and decide on these issues on their merits following the appeal restoration.