Rishikesh Sharma, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi

ITA 5482/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0747 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5482/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rishikesh Sharma, C/o Bhalla & Co., Bigios Tower, 11 th Floor, 11-G, NSP Pitampura, New Delhi. PAN: AOSPS3911G Vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2019 of the CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- “l. On the fact and circumstances of the case and under the law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred for not allowing the condo nation of delay in filling the appeal. 2. That there is no fault of the assessee, who should not be penalized for the default of the counsel. 3. That there was a reasonable sufficient Cause for file ITA No.5482/Del/2019 2 the appeal late. 4. That the principal of natural justice demands that a person should be given opportunity to represent his case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law for rejecting, the Pray for condonation of delay. 5. That the appellant craves the leaves to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. When the case was called for hearing, neither the assessee nor his representative appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed. It is pertinent to note that the notice issued to the appellant assessee has been received back with a report ‘left without.’ However, on perusal of the appeal record, we are of the considered view that the appeal can be disposed of in absence of the assessee after hearing the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 4. We find, before the CIT(A), the appeal was filed late by 236 days. The request made before the CIT(A) for condonation of delay was rejected by the CIT(A) in limine vide para 6 to 8 of his order. The ld.CIT(A) has reproduced application and submissions of the assessee seeking condonation of delay, wherein on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted that after signing appeal by the assessee, it was received by the AR within time, but, due to renovation of the office of the ld. AR, it was misplaced/lost among the files and could not be traced even after making sincere efforts by the ld. AR. Precisely, the delay was caused due to said bona fide reasons which are beyond the control of the ITA No.5482/Del/2019 3 assessee and his counsel. The ld. AR also relied on various judgements including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 1987 (167) SC 471. 5. The ld. Sr. DR before us, in all fairness, agreed to the contention of the ld. AR that the assessee should not be punished for the delay caused due to misplacement of appeal file at the office of the ld. AR due to renovation. We are satisfied that the cause shown by the assessee explaining the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, respectfully following the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji and Ors. (supra), the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. 6. Since the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine treating the same as time barred without adjudicating the grounds of the assessee placed in form No.35, therefore, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) by the earlier part of this order, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating of the grounds of the assessee placed in Form No.35 on merits. ITA No.5482/Del/2019 4 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31 st August, 2022. dk Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi