2020 (2) TMI 990 - AT - Income Tax

Partial success in appeals against Income Tax Commissioner's orders for AY 2014-15 emphasizes substantial justice and merits reconsideration.

Shri Mohan Bhawani, C/o Purohit And Joshi Versus Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing), Bhopal

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals challenging orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The delay in filing ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay was for 491 days - Reasonable cause of delay - HELD THAT:- Assessee being a non resident was dependent on his counsel for the legal remedies available in the Act against the additions made by the Ld. A.O. Since the assessee was residing outside India the assessment order was served to the watchman thereafter handed over to the counsel for taking necessary action. However the counsel failed to take any action during the time permitted for filing the appeal which caused the delay. Assessee was in bonafide belief that appeal has been filed by the due date but when it came to his notice that no appeal has been filed by the counsel appointed by him, he changed the counsel who filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Primarily it seems that the delay was not intentional and there was a reasonable cause preventing the assessee to file the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and if the issues are not adjudicated on merits, justice will be denied to the assessee. See COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] - Thus in the interest of justice the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) needs to be condoned. Issues:Appeals challenging orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2014-15, including issues related to assessment u/s 143(3), penalty order, and assessment u/s 154.Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeal:The appeals were dismissed due to a delay of 491 days in filing. The counsel for the assessee argued that the delay was unintentional, primarily due to the non-resident status of the appellant and miscommunication with the earlier counsel. Citing relevant judgments, including Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji, it was emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and judgments, held that the delay should be condoned to ensure justice for the assessee.2. Merits Adjudication:The Tribunal noted that the issues raised in the appeals were not adjudicated on merits by Ld. CIT(A) due to the delay in filing. Referring to various legal precedents, including Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Civil Appeal, the Tribunal stressed the importance of allowing matters to be contested on merits rather than dismissing them on technical grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that all remaining grounds be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for a comprehensive adjudication on merits by issuing a speaking order.3. Outcome:In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeals for Assessment Year 2014-15, primarily based on the decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ensuring justice by adjudicating on merits rather than dismissing cases on technical grounds. All remaining issues were directed to be reconsidered on their merits by Ld. CIT(A) through a detailed speaking order.This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal arguments, judgments cited, and the ultimate decision of the Tribunal regarding the issues raised in the appeals.