2019 (4) TMI 632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.489/Coch/2010, dated 16.08.2013. An appeal filed by the appellant - assessee against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 263 of the Act, with respect to the assessment year 2004-05, was challenged before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay to the extent of 439 days. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal by finding that there exists no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The assessee is approaching this Court challenging the said order. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted seeking condonation of delay the appellant/assessee had mentioned that, the Commissioner of Income Tax had passed the order under Section 263 of the Act on 24.03.2009 and it was received by the assessee on 06.04.2009 and the appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been filed under Section 253(1)(c) of the Act within sixty days, which the assessee had failed to do. The assessee had shown the reason that the consequential assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, who passed an order on 12.11.2009 and the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram. It is specifically mentioned that the assessee was under the impression tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e at all to condone the delay. 8. The sufficiency of the cause shown by the appellant is a matter to be weighed on the scales of justice, which the Tribunal had virtually failed to do. Therefore, there exist a substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal had acted in accordance with law while it refused to condone the delay, at least in terms of cost. We are satisfied that there is failure in this regard on the part of the Tribunal. Consequently, the said question need to be answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue. In view of such finding we need not answer any other questions of law framed, because the matter need to be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the appeal on its merits. In the result....