AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee, hence, both these appeals are being disposed of through a single order. It may be mentioned that ITA No.588/Del/2026 pertains to the quantum matter and ITA No.589/Del/2026 pertains to a penalty levied u/s 272A(i)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). It is seen that both these appeals have been disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) through orders dated 02.03.2023 (ITA No.588) and 28.10.2022 (ITA 589). The penalty has been levied for the AY 2017-18, whereas the quantum appeal is for AY 2012-13.
While ITA 588 is time barred by 965 days, ITA 589 is time barred by 1116 days. The assesse has filed more or less identically worded affidavits, and for the sake of convenience the affidavit filed for ITA 588 is extracted as under: -
“Affidavit of Sh. Deepak Gupta, Director of M/s Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited.
1, Deepak Gupta, Director of M/s Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited resident of B-7/119-120,2 Floor, Sec. 17, Rohini New Delhi-110085, do solemnly affirm and state as under:
1.That I am Director of M/s Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited the assessee, and as such well conversant with the facts deposed to below.
2.That the appeal filed by the assessee before the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals)-27, New Delhi was disposed of by order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi.
3.That the assessee had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on 25.05.2023 through the ITAT e-filing portal vide acknowledgment no.1685007071. However, due to certain technical errors on the portal, the said appeal could not be processed/fixed for hearing till date. A copy of the acknowledgement is annexed herewith as Annexure-01.
4.That the appeal filing fees were also paid on 28.04.2023, which clearly establishes that the appeal was duly filed within time. Copy of the appeal fee payment challan/receipt along with acknowledgement is annexed herewith as Annexure-02.
5.That due to certain technical errors/issues on the ITAT e-filing portal, the said appeal could not be processed or fixed for hearing, despite being properly filed and fees being paid. The delay has occurred solely due to such technical reasons.
6.That due to the above circumstances, and in order to safeguard its legal rights, the assessee is refiling the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi Bench:
7.That the delay, if any, is bona fide, unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee, and the assessee has a strong case on merits. Grave injustice would be caused if the delay is not condoned.
8.That the assessee undertakes that no such delay or procedural default shall occur in future.”
We have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and have also heard the Ld. AR on this issue. A perusal of the affidavit and the arguments of the Ld. AR would give an impression that the assessee has handled the filing of impugned appeals in a rather causal manner. However, in the interests of substantive justice, we are rather inclined to condone the delay on the basis of certain settled judicial principles which mandate that as far as possible appeals should be heard on merits and only in exceptional cases should they be dismissed on grounds of limitation. We may discuss this proposition for the sake of perspective. Section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to condone the delay in filing of the appeals in case the respective bench is satisfied about the reasons for the same. The words “sufficient cause” as appearing in section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate in-action or negligence on the part of the appellant. It is understood that the words “sufficient cause” should be applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the decisive factor in considering condonation of delay is not the duration of such delay, but rather the sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. Some cases deserve to be referred to in light of these observations:
Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987 AIR 1353 (SC)];
N Balakrishnan vs. M Krishnamurthy [7 SCC 123 (SC)].
A reading of these cases reveals that the Hon’ble Apex Court supports an approach that the reasons advanced by an appellant for condoning the delay have to be seen from a justice-oriented approach.
However, while we condone the delay in both the cases and admit the appeals for adjudication, we would not deem it to be desirable that such instances of casual approach in adhering to statutory time lines does not serve as an example for others to follow. Accordingly, we deem it fit to levy a cost of Rs.20,000/- on the assesse to be payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-38, Lawyers Chamber, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. This amount is payable by 15.06.2026.
Since the appeals are now admitted for adjudication the Ld. AR was asked to make a submission on facts. The Ld. AR stated that due to inadequate assistance rendered by the tax consultant the assessee could not make any presentation of facts before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. It was the submission that the assessee may be given another chance to present the facts.
The Ld. DR had no objection in case the matter was to be remanded back.
We have carefully considered the facts of the case and have gone through the records before us. It is clear that there is absolutely no fact finding at the first appellate stage to enable us to gainfully adjudicate on the issues involved. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be expected to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard in both the cases.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.