2018 (12) TMI 204 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Late fee charged from the assessee u/s 234E - date of filing application u/s 154, date of passing order u/s 154 and date of filing of appeals before learned CIT(A) - Held that - We find that assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) after outcome of order u/s 154 of the Act and the appeals were filed within a period of 20 days from the outcome of the order u/s 154. There is a reasonable cause of delay in filing the appeals before learned CIT(A) and therefore, learned CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merits. Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bharat Auto Centre (2005 (7) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) on the issue of condonation of delay - we direct the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeals and hear the assessee on merits. - Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Late fee charged under section 234E of the Act, delay in filing appeals before learned CIT(A), condonation of delay, substantial justice, judicial precedents on delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a group of 19 appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the learned CIT(A), all dated 29/11/2017, concerning the late fee charged from the assessee under section 234E of the Act. The common issues in these appeals were heard together, leading to a consolidated order. The key contention was the delay in filing the appeals, which the assessee attributed to awaiting the outcome of an application under section 154 of the Act. The delay was not intentional or negligent, and the assessee sought condonation based on substantial justice principles and judicial precedents supporting a liberal view on delay.

The learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without addressing the merits due to the delay, exceeding one year. However, upon review, the ITAT found that the appeals were filed within 20 days of the outcome of the section 154 order, indicating a reasonable cause for the delay. Citing the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's stance on condonation of delay, the ITAT emphasized the importance of substantial justice and the need to balance technical considerations with the cause of justice.

Referring to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions, the ITAT highlighted the courts' role in advancing substantial justice and the need for a pragmatic approach in condoning delay. The judgment underscored that rules of limitation aim to prevent dilatory tactics rather than depriving parties of their rights. The ITAT directed the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to hear the assessee on merits, aligning with the principles of substantial justice and the legal precedents discussed.

Ultimately, the ITAT allowed all the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside the previous orders and remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits after providing an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the law. The judgment, pronounced on 30/11/2018, exemplifies the importance of balancing technical aspects with the overarching goal of serving substantial justice in legal proceedings.