Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 96 - ITAT JAIPUREx parte order - Intimation u/s 143(1) - delay in filing the present appeal by 242 days - HELD THAT:- In case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT], as held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that the assessee has all along acted diligently in safeguarding its legal rights and availing the remedies available to it and has acted and taken action basis the advice and assistance sought from its Chartered Accountant. As initially advised not to file an appeal before the Tribunal as the matter relates to processing of return of income and thereafter, he was advised to file the present appeal as there is no legal bar in filing the appeal against the demand raised in terms of processing of return of income and intimation issued u/s 143(1). There is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay. On merits as well where the assessee has raised the issue of chargeability of tax at the maximum marginal rate vis-à-vis the slab rate of taxation as applicable in the case of beneficiary of trust, we find that the assessee deserve an opportunity to be heard once and the matter shouldn’t be dismissed on mere technicality. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. As pursuant to filing of return of income by the assessee on 6.2.2014 which was processed by the CPC and an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued raising a demand of ₹ 25,950/- on the assessee which has been contested in appeal before the CIT(A). The matter has been listed for hearing on couple of occasions however there has been no compliance on part of the assessee and the matter has thereafter been decided ex-parte by the ld CIT(A) - fact of the matter is that the appeal has not been decided on merits and in absence of findings of the ld CIT(A), no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to put forward its contentions and submissions which shall be decided on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
|