Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 430 - ITAT SURATCondonation of delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A) - delay in these appeal ranging between 101 days to 701 days in filing of appeal - main reason for delay is claimed as that the notice were received at the branch level of the bank. It was further submitted that the appellant being a public Sector bank, it has to take permission through proper channel for filing of appeals which consumes a considerable time. The delay beyond 30 days was due to the following approval procedure prevalent in bank - HELD THAT:- None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits, unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed in filing of appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking bona-fides. In the case in hands, the branch has to act as per advice of Head Office, hence, which consumed sufficient period of time, therefore, it could not be regarded as negligence or of lacking of bona-fides. We are of the considered opinion that CIT (A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal, hence, we condone the delay in filing of appeal and remit back the appeal to CIT(A) to be decide on merits. Assessee has been vigilant in its approach and has not neglected the Income tax proceedings. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the length of the delay is immaterial. The acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria for condoning the delay. In a given case and, delay of the shortest period of time may be uncondonable due to unacceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a long period can be condoned, if the explanation is satisfactory. In every case of delay, there might be some omissions of negligence on the part of the assessee Maxtor mind such omissions/negligence has to be weighed in the light of exist circumstances of each case. It would the negligence of commission is a byproduct of a deliberate attempt with mala-fide intention for delay the process of the litigation which could give some benefit to the litigant, then probably process of litigation which would view some benefit with the litigant then probably that delay would not deserved to be condoned. However, if no mala-fide can be attributed to the delay, that delay will be condonable. - the assessee has been able to demonstrate sufficient cause and reasons for filing an appeal before the CIT (A) - Delay condoned. - Appeal restored before CIT(A)
|