CENTRE FOR HERITAGE STUDIES,THRIPUNITHURA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

SA 44/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Centre for Heritage Studies, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary issue was the dismissal of their appeal due to a significant delay of 1439 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The Tribunal considered the merits of the case and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delay, ultimately deciding to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38360 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Vareli Textile Industry vs. CIT
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRLY ALBERT
• Assessee Lawyers: M. VEERAMANI
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member ITA No. 367/Coch/2024& SA No. 44/Coch/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Centre for Heritage Studies Hill Palace, Thripunithura Ernakulam 682301 [PAN: AACAC5001G] vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri .M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 30.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has also filed a stay application SA No. 44/Coch/2024 qua the appeal. 2. At the outset, it was noticed that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) of 1439 days which was not condoned by the learned CIT(A) and therefore the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed in limini. 3. However, the learned A.R. before us contended that in the present case the gross amount has been added to the total income of the assessee in arbitrary manner without given benefit of corresponding expenditure/ application of income. According to the learned A.R., the income of the 2 ITA No. 367& SA 44/Coch/2024 Centre for Heritage Studies assessee has to be charged to tax within the four corners of law despite the assessee failed to cooperate during the proceedings. According to the learned A.R. the assessee has a strong case on merits and therefore a meritorious case should not be dismissed on technical lapses. 4. The learned A.R. also contended that the substantial delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is also attributable to the Covid-19 period which was duly condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the learned A.R. prayed before us to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A with the direction to the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits. 5. On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR considering the substantial delay opposed to condone the same. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Indeed, the delay is substantial, but the meritorious case cannot be ignored merely on the delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, we note that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vareli textile industry versus CIT reported in 154 Taxman 33 has held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that a meritorious case is not thrown out on the ground of limitation. Therefore, it is necessary to examine, at least prima facie, whether the assessee has or has not a case on merits. 7. From the above, it is transpired that a meritorious case of the assessee should not be thrown away due to negligence or on account of technical lapses. In the light of the above stated discussion, we proceed to evaluate whether the delay in the present case needs to be condoned in the given facts and circumstances. Admittedly, the gross amount cannot be made subject to the charge of tax 3 ITA No. 367& SA 44/Coch/2024 Centre for Heritage Studies without allowing the corresponding expenditure/ application of income. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that it is the fit case where the delay has to be condoned irrespective of the duration/period of the delay. We also note that there is no allegation from the Revenue that the appeal was not filed by the assessee within the time deliberately. Therefore, we are inclined to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. We also find that if we reject the application of the assessee for condoning the delay before the ld. CIT-A, then it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground whereas the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Thus, we condone the delay of in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT-A and restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT-A to adjudicate the appeal on merit. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st October, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Soundararajan K.) JudicialMember (Waseem Ahmed) AccountantMember Cochin, Dated: 21st October, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "