Tribunal grants appeal, allows delay, directs CIT(A) to decide, citing genuine reasons

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoned the delay in filing before CIT(A), and directed CIT(A) to decide on the merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal found genuine reasons for the delay, citing a precedent that non-mala fide explanations warrant condonation. The delay was attributed to the AO's failure to provide a hearing opportunity, health issues faced by the managing partner, and advice from the Chartered Accountant. CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay based on negligence was overturned.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) due to AO not affording opportunity of being heard.
2. Refusal by CIT(A) to condone the delay based on negligence and want of due diligence.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the AO dated 15.04.2014, which confirmed the additions sustained by the CIT(A) without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard as directed by the ITAT. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was 156 days, and the reasons for the delay were explained by the assessee in an Affidavit. The delay was attributed to the AO not providing a hearing opportunity, subsequent health issues faced by the managing partner, and the advice received from the Chartered Accountant. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, citing negligence and lack of due diligence on the part of the assessee.

Issue 2: The Tribunal, after hearing the rival submissions, found that the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal were not disputed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd. where it was held that if the delay explanation is not mala fide and not a dilatory tactic, the delay should be condoned. The Tribunal observed that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay did not indicate any malafides and were genuine. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there were bonafide reasons for the delay and the CIT(A) should have condoned it. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

---