ITAT allows appeal after 335-day delay citing COVID-19 impact on obtaining Norway tax documents

ITAT Bangalore allowed assessee's appeal against CIT(A)'s rejection of condonation application for 335-day delay in filing appeal. The tribunal found sufficient cause existed as assessee required tax payment documents from Norway, which was delayed due to COVID-19 circumstances. No intentional negligence or deliberate delay was established. CIT(A) failed to properly consider the explanation provided. Matter remitted to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions to hear assessee and consider relevant evidence before passing orders in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before the CIT (A) due to the rejection of explanation for the delay.
2. Consideration of sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Applicability of legal principles and judgments in condoning the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A) dismissing the appeal due to a delay in filing. The delay was explained by the assessee as being caused by a misunderstanding regarding the intimation received and subsequent actions taken. The CIT (A) rejected the explanation, citing lack of documentary evidence and the assessee's familiarity with tax procedures. The CIT (A) concluded that there was no sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without considering the merits of the case.

Issue 2: The ITAT considered the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee and found that there was no intentional negligence on the part of the assessee. The ITAT noted that gathering necessary details for the appeal, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, required time and did not indicate deliberate delay. The ITAT held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing the elastic nature of the term "sufficient cause" and the absence of gross negligence on the part of the assessee.

Issue 3: The ITAT referenced legal principles and judgments, including the Supreme Court's stance on condoning delay based on facts and circumstances of each case. The ITAT highlighted the need for judicious exercise of discretion in condoning delay and the importance of considering sufficient cause without negligence or lack of bona fides. The ITAT differentiated the present case from prior judgments by finding no deliberate delay or gross negligence by the assessee, ultimately allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and remitting the issue back to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.

In conclusion, the ITAT's decision focused on the assessee's explanation for the delay, the absence of intentional negligence, and the proper application of legal principles in condoning the delay. The ITAT's ruling emphasized the need to consider the facts of each case and the elastic nature of "sufficient cause" while ensuring that statutory principles are upheld.

---