Sri. Suresha Chikkajala Ramakrishnappa, Bangalore V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 866/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5481 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2013-14 Sri Suresha Chikkajala Ramakrishnappa, 81, Stone Building, Chikkajala Post, Chikkajala, Bangalore – 562 157. PAN : BADPS 0728K Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 13.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 25.03.2024 of the CIT(Appeals)-15, Bangalore, for the AY 2013-14 challenging the ex-parte order for not condoning the delay in filing ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 12 appeal and further contesting the assessment completed u/s. 153C of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income u/s.139 on 01.05.2014 declaring income at Rs.2.22 crores. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2016. Pursuant to search conducted in the case of Mr. Ramanna Ashwathappa on 07.03.2019, after recording satisfaction note, the AO issued notice u/s. 153C. Accordingly assessee filed return on 31.03.2021 in pursuant to notice u/s 153C of the I. T. Act and declared total income of Rs.4,52,94,330. Subsequently statutory notices were issued to the assessee and AO completed assessment on 30.07.2021. Against the above assessment order, the assessee filed first appeal on 20.11.2022. 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the provisions of section 249 and it is delayed by 265 days and after considering the submissions of the assessee which are reproduced in his order regarding condonation of delay and relying on various judgments, he did not condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved from the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 4. The ld. AR reiterated the reasons for condoning the delay taken before the CIT(A) and he has filed an affidavit before us in this regard dated 11.6.2024 which is as under:- ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 12 ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 12 ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 12 ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 12 ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 12 ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 12 5. Referring to the above affidavit and application filed before the CIT(Appeals) for condonation of delay, the ld. AR requested that the matter may be sent back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and he undertook that assessee will comply all the notices for disposal of the case. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not explained properly the reasons for condoning delay in filing appeal to the satisfaction of the CIT(A) and objected for remitting the matter again before the CIT(A). The reasons stated are very casual reasons and this is a search case and assessee must be vigilant of the proceedings. Therefore the appeal should be dismissed. 7. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) amounts to 165 days. However, on going through the submissions of the Ld.AR and the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the application for condonation of delay, the delay cannot be considered to be the one caused due to any malafide intention. In fact, we find the reason submitted by the assessee that caused the delay is a mistake on behalf of assessee at the personal level. We also note that, upon realising the mistake committed by the assessee’s counsel, he immediately took necessary steps to represent his case before the authority. It is further emphasised that the assessee is not a continuous defaulter could also be attributed. This can be understood from the return filed in pursuant to notice issued u/s 153C ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 9 of 12 of the I T Act for the relevant AY that has been the basis for the demand. It is noted that for the relevant Assessment Year, assessee had offered income u/s 153C at Rs. 4,52,94,320/- and the AO has made addition only of Rs. 27,641/-. we note that the assessee did not file appeal within the prescribed time u/s. 249 (2) against the assessment order passed by the AO order dated 30.07.2021. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits of the case and only dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. In case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs. ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), it was held that; "when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay". 8. The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision o: Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CH vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 12 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 9. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, this Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) clearly says that in order to advance substantial justice which is of prime importance, the expression sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, for the purpose of advancing substantial justice which is of prime importance in the administration of justice, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In opinion of this Tribunal, this decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court is applicable to the present facts of the case. A similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 10. Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 11 of 12 that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi reported in AIR 1978 SC 537 held that, non-filing of affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of delay may be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee, therefore, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that; "It does not mean that when the delay was for longer period, the delay should not be condoned even though there was sufficient cause. Condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court/ Tribunal. Therefore, it would depend upon the facts of each case. In our opinion, when there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay deserves to be condoned, irrespective of the duration/period. 11. With the above observations, following the above judgments, in our considered opinion, there exists sufficient cause in the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals and we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal afresh as per law. The assessee is directed to update its email id, communication address and other details and file necessary documents that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of ITA No.866/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 12 being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. 12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order ppronounced in the open court on this 31 st day of July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 31 st July, 2024. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.