9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, with a delay of 97 days. However, while preferring the said appeals, the assessee had not paid the tax due at the time of filing the appeals and since the appeals have not been filed as required under Section 249 (4) (a) of the Income Tax Act, the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thereafter, the assessee paid the admitted tax due and filed another six appeals with a delay of 534 days. However, all those appeals came to be dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Aggrieved against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relates to penalty. The pre-condition for filing the appeals is requirement of deposit of admitted tax due, which apparently the assessee had deposited with a delay of 534 days. But the fact remains that appeals were filed earlier without deposit of the admitted tax due, however, with some delay and with reason for the delay. Taking note of the nature of business of the assessee and the financial hardship expressed by the assessee, wherein the assessee had stated that was in dire financial difficulty to pay the tax at that particular point of time and after making sufficient arrangements to get the funds, the assessee had later paid the tax due on account of which delay occasioned, the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way. This ratio of the judgment as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited decision will be applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. The prima facie case of the assessee before the Tribunal was that there was no liability for the assessee to pay the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee had also made good the requirement of Section 249 (4) (a) of the Income Tax Act at a later date. Taking note of the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and remitted the matters back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. The Revenue, before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
