Tribunal allows appeals, remands for reconsideration. Clarifies on section 195(2) and 248 eligibility.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider them. The delay in filing appeals was condoned as the appellant provided a valid explanation. The Tribunal clarified that separate appeals were not necessary for each remittance under section 195(2) unless they span multiple financial years. Regarding eligibility under section 248, the Tribunal instructed a re-examination considering the tax liability arrangement post-amendment by the Finance Act, 2007. All appeals were remanded for re-adjudication, allowing the appellant to raise legal and factual issues with supporting evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Filing of appeals late before the Ld. CIT(A).
2. Requirement of filing separate appeals for each remittance.
3. Eligibility of the appellant for filing an appeal under section 248 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Appeals Late Before the Ld. CIT(A):

The Ld. CIT(A) refused to grant condonation for the delay in filing the appeals, citing that the petition for condonation was not attached with the appeal memo and the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. However, the Tribunal found that it is not mandatory for the condonation petition to be attached with the appeal memo, as long as it is filed before the hearing date. The appellant had submitted a duly sworn affidavit and a detailed note explaining the delay, which should have been considered. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay was inadvertent and not due to any malafide intention. The Tribunal referenced various judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to support a liberal approach in condoning delays. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to take the appeals on record for hearing.

2. Requirement of Filing Separate Appeals for Each Remittance:

The Ld. CIT(A) held that separate appeals were required for each remittance. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that for every order passed under section 195(2), only one appeal is required under section 248. However, if the order under section 195(2) pertains to remittances for more than one financial year, separate appeals are necessary for each year. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the appeals based on these guidelines.

3. Eligibility of the Appellant for Filing an Appeal Under Section 248:

The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, stating that the appellant did not fulfill the condition of bearing the tax liability under an agreement or arrangement, as required by section 248. The Tribunal clarified that section 248, post-amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, requires the tax liability to be borne by the payer under an agreement or arrangement for appeals concerning remittances made after 01.06.2007. For remittances made before this date, the previous provisions apply, which do not include this condition. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the appeals, considering whether the tax liability was borne by the appellant under any arrangement, even if not explicitly stated in the initial agreement. The Tribunal also instructed the Ld. CIT(A) to verify that the tax amount was paid to the credit of the Central Government, another mandatory condition for filing an appeal under section 248.

Conclusion:

All appeals were sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-examination and re-adjudication in light of the Tribunal's directions. The appellant is allowed to raise all legal and factual issues and submit requisite evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) is to provide adequate opportunity for the appellant to make submissions and present evidence before deciding the appeals on merits. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

---