TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id the admitted taxes on their returned incomes at the time of filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in terms of provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the I.T. Act, and therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessees are in appeal before the ITAT raising the following grounds of appeal, which are common in nature in all the appeals under consideration:- "1. The order of the CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant u/s 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, is wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to note that the appellant has paid the admitted tax on the returned income as found and noted by the CIT(A) at para 6.3 of his own order and therefore erred in dismissing the appeal 'in limine'. 3. The appellant prays that the admitted tax having been paid much before the disposal of the appeal, the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits." 4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed a statement, in a tabular form, wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 30/04/2012, where the AM was the author of the order. In the said case the Bench held as under:- "6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is no doubt true that non-payment of admitted tax on the returned income is fatal to the validity of an appeal, in terms of the provisions of S.249(4)(a) of the Act. However, as held by the Tribunal in similar matters, as in ITA No.402/Hyd/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of D.S. Karunakar Reddy vs. DCIT, it is a curable defect, and till such time admitted tax is paid the appeal remains defective and not valid, and when such defect is cured by payment of tax on the returned income by the assessee, the appeal becomes valid, and such valid appeal is deemed to have been filed. That being so, delay in the filing of the appeal has to be reckoned till the date the appeal is made valid by the assessee by making payment of admitted tax on returned income, and if there is reasonable cause for the delay in the payment of admitted tax, the delay may be condoned, and the appeal may be disposed off on merits. In the instant case, the assessee has admittedly paid the taxes on the returned income, only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC). wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the ambit and scope of expression "pass such orders therein as it thinks fit", used in section 33(4) of IT Act, 1922, which is analogous to section 254(1) in the Income-tax Act, 1961. At page 237, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observation : "The word 'thereof, of course, restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter of the appeal. The words "pass such orders as the Tribunal thinks fit" include all the powers (except possibly the power of enhancement) which are conferred upon the AAC by Section 31 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal has authority under this section to direct the AAC or the ITO to hold a further enquiry and dispose of the case on the basis of such enquiry." 9. Then again this expression fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service (199 ITR 1) (SC). In this case, assessee filed the return late for asst. yrs. 1963-64 and 1964 65. Thus, violated Section 271(1)(a)(2) of the Act. The learned AO levied the penalty. However, while calcu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for late filing of appeal exist or not. If the learned CIT(A) arrived at a conclusion that sufficient reasons exist then again the controversy would be decided on merit. Thus, on conjoint reading of Sub-sections (3) and (4), it is inferred that defect arises due to non-compliance of Section 249(4) is a curable one and in a given case if the Tribunal is satisfied that there exist sufficient reasons for curing such defects after expiry of limitation, it would be in the realm of Tribunal's discretion to restore such matters to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the controversy on merit because Sub-section (1) of Section 254 provides wide powers to the Tribunal for passing such orders thereon as it thinks fit in the interest of justice. 11. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee has discharged the huge tax liability on 8.12.2011 at ₹ 3,07,544 and as a proof the assessee filed a copy of challan from Central Bank of India, Gudimalkapuram Branch, Hyderabad. Thus, it would be totally unfair for not providing an opportunity to her for disputing the additions made by the AO on merit. The Hon'ble Full Bench of Delhi High Court in J.T. (India) Exports and Anr. v. Unio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these appeals deserve to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restoring the same before the learned first appellate authority for adjudication on merit. For the above view, the Bench drew support from the decision of Hon'ble Orissa High Court given in the case of CIT v. Kalipada Ghose (1987) 167 ITR 173 (Ori). Though the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was on a little different footing, but an inference can be drawn from the judgment that in such cases the right course would be restoring the appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, the issue relates to asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76. The learned AO determined the income of assessee at ₹ 17,500 and ₹ 30,000. Against this order, the appeals were filed before the first appellate authority on 29th Oct., 1975. By then Section 249 has been amended by incorporating Sub-section (4) w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1975. The learned first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that assessee failed to pay the agreed tax at the time of filing of the appeal. During the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee paid agreed tax on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me and again held that the expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of a delay should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona-fide is imputable to a party because the judiciary is expected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting the delay or breaching any provision of a statute. The Hon'ble, Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 167 1TR 471 (SC) has observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Thus, considering the hardship of the assessee, we are of the opinion that there exist sufficient reasons for not filing a valid effective appeal before the CIT(A). It is aptly said that facts should be viewed in a natural perspective having regard to the compulsion of circumstances of a ....