2016 (12) TMI 1779 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed for substantial justice, remanded for fresh adjudication. Delays condoned due to reasonable cause.

The tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of considering substantial justice and remanding the case to the ... Condonation of delay - delay of 5 months and 24 days - eligible reasons for delay - assessee had stated that his mother had expired on 22.1.2011 after a short span of illness - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, we noticed for AY 2008-09, the assessee has given the reason of demise of his mother for the delay in filing the appeal. For the AY 2009-10, apart from the demise of his mother, the assessee has stated that he is a partner of firms and director of certain companies which had incurred losses on account of closure of mining activities consequent to which the business activity was stopped, and lending banks had pressurized for payment of instalments, which led the assessee to great mental pressure. As relying on COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] assessee in the instant case was having sufficient/reasonable cause for filing appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 - delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) has been condoned, the issue on merits necessarily has to be adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is remitting to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes. Issues involved: Delay in filing appeals before CIT(A) for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10, condonation of delay, dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) in limini, sufficiency of reasons for delay, application of legal principles for condonation of delay.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeals: The assessee, engaged in retail liquor sales, filed appeals against assessment orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 after considerable delays of 4 months and 28 days, and 5 months and 24 days respectively. The reasons cited for the delays included personal hardships like the demise of the assessee's mother and financial pressures due to business losses.2. Dismissal by CIT(A): The CIT(A) rejected the condonation petitions for delay in filing the appeals, leading to the dismissal of the appeals in limini without considering the merits of the case. The assessee then approached the tribunal challenging the CIT(A)'s orders.3. Legal Precedents and Principles: The tribunal referred to a Mumbai High Court case involving a similar delay due to personal reasons and emphasized the need for a liberal view in condoning delays. Legal principles from the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and the necessity to consider each case pragmatically.4. Decision and Remittance: Considering the reasons provided by the assessee for the delays and the legal principles governing delay condonation petitions, the tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient and reasonable cause for the delays. Consequently, the tribunal condoned the delays and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.5. Outcome: The tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of considering substantial justice and remanding the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeals.This detailed analysis outlines the issues related to the delay in filing appeals, the dismissal by the CIT(A), the application of legal principles for condonation of delay, and the ultimate decision of the tribunal to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for further consideration based on the reasons provided by the assessee and legal precedents.