2021 (9) TMI 1512 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) - delay in filing the appeal was stated to be medical issues of the Learned Counsel - HELD THAT - We find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT has held that as long as the conduct of the applicant does not on the whole warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant generally the delay be condoned. It has further held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties but they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. It has further held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of litigant concerned however that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. It is a settled law that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. Before us no material has been placed by Revenue to demonstrate that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) by the assessee was due to some mala fide intention on its part. In view of the well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be afforded to parties and no party should be condemned unheard we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) needs to be condoned. We accordingly condone the delay. Since the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits we are of the view that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to present its case. We therefore restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that CIT(A) shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Thus the grounds of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) and condonation of delay. Failure of CIT(A) to decide appeal on merits.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee raised grounds related to the delay in filing the appeal, non-condonation of delay by CIT(A), and failure to decide the appeal on merits. The appeal was heard ex-parte as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the Learned DR supported the lower authorities' order.

The delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) was attributed to medical issues faced by the assessee's counsel. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. However, the ITAT referred to the Supreme Court case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that rules of limitation should not be used to deny parties their rights. The ITAT found no evidence of mala fide intention behind the delay and stressed the importance of affording parties a fair hearing. Consequently, the ITAT decided to condone the delay and remanded the matter back to CIT(A for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring both parties are given adequate hearing opportunities.

Ultimately, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair consideration of the case on its merits. The decision highlighted the need to balance procedural requirements with the fundamental principles of natural justice to ensure a just outcome in tax matters.