TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 1.12.2011. Thus the appeal of the assessee was time barred before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessment order dated 30.11.2009 admittedly have been served upon the assessee on 22.12.2009 which makes the time of filing the appeal as 21.1.2010. However, the appeal is filed on 1.12.2009 with a delay of about 680 days. 3. The assessee submitted application for condonation of delay which is reproduced in the impugned order in which the assessee briefly explained that assessee has made claim of exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Act in the return of income as per the Act. The assessee could not file the appeal against the assessment order for the reasons beyond his control. The assessee sought legal advice and he was advised not to file any appeal due to the reasons that in case appeal is preferred, penalty would be attracted against the assessee. The Assessing officer also assured the assessee not to prefer appeal and only on this condition penalty proceedings were dropped by the Assessing officer. It was explained that assessee had to go out of country in connection with family affairs and remain out of India during the period 26.7.2010 to 15.1.2011. The assessee came to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned CIT (Appeals) has not given any findings on the merits of the case and hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard Shri M.R. Sharma, learned counsel for assessee and Shri R.K.Gupta, learned D.R for the Revenue at length and also perused the materials available on record. It is apparent from the records that the assessment order in this case was passed by the Assessing Officer on 13.12.2010 and the relevant notice of demand and the assessment order was served on the assessee on 28.12.2010. However, the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) on 21.12.2011. Thus, there is delay of about 11 months in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals). It is observed that alongwith memo of appeal, the assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal duly supported by an affidavit. The reason for the delay given by the assessee was that he could not file an appeal against the order of assessment for the reasons beyond his control. The assessee was advised not to file any appeal due to the reasons that in case the appeal is preferred the provisions with regard to the penalty would be attracted. However, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xable under l.T. Act, 1961. However on 28/3/2007, Bombay Tribunal had in 222 appeals of the RBI employees held that they are entitled to benefit u/s 10(1 OC) and also u/s 89(1). Following that decision, the employees have filed the appeal. The delay Is therefore attributable to the incorrect legal advice. Appeal is filed after knowing an order of the Bombay Tribunal in favour of the employees. On this basis, these employees have prayed for condonation of delay. 4. On this issue we have heard Learned D. R. who has' submitted that the reason so advanced could not be said to be satisfactory. An assessee, who is not vigilant about his right, could not be helped by the machinery provided in the statute. On the other hand learned authorised representative for the assesses submitted that in the interest of justice, delay in filing appeal should be condoned. 5. We have considered the rival submission. In our view, delay in filing appeal by the above employees needed to be condoned in the interest of imparting substantial justice. Hon'ble Madras High Court in Venkatadri Traders Limited vs CIT (2001) 248 ITR 681 held that while considering the question of condonation of delay i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at in order to impart justice to the employees/assesses the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. In the instant case also, the assessee was advised not to file appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals). However, the assessee came to know about the decision of the I.T.A.T., Division Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Shri Bikram Jit Passi (supra) and thereafter immediately the assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals). The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of Shri Arun Rohtagi & Others (supra). Respectfully following the order of the I.T.A.T., Lucknow Bench in the case of Shri Arun Rohtagi & Others (supra) I hold that the learned CIT (Appeals) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits." 6. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the views that delay in filing the appeal should be condoned in the matter. The similar case have been taken by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Madan Mohan Sharma (supra) and on identical facts delay in filing the appeal have....