Mahendra Kumar Goyal Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT condone delay of 9 years in filing appeal on account of inordinate delay of about 9 years as the assessee was imprisoned to Jail under serious criminal offence which was beyond his control to file the appeal in time
CIT(A) observed in his order dated 14-09-2021 that there is inordinate delay of 9 years in filing the appeal by the assessee on the issue of demand raised as well as the penalty amount. The ld. CIT(A) in his order elaborately discussed the issue taking the recourse of various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts holding that there is no sufficient cause which justifiably prevent the assessee in late filing the after an inordinate delay of 9 years.
AR of the assesee filed a brief synopsis of the events praying that the ld. CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit instead of dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of inordinate delay of about 9 years as the assessee was imprisoned to Jail under serious criminal offence which was beyond his control to file the appeal in time for adjudication of the case before the ld. CIT(A). Conclusively, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the delay of approximate of 9 years be condoned in view of the gravity and situation of the assessee’s case and the appeal of the assessee should be adjudicated upon afresh by the ld. CIT(A) on merit.
It is worthwhile to mention that when the assessment order was passed by the AO on 27-12-2011 then the assessee Shri Mahendera Kumar Goyal, could not get the service of the assessment order and he was not aware about the passing of the assessment order. Further the penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) was passed on 28-06-2012 by the ACIT, Circle-Kota and the service of the penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) could not take place to the assessee because he was in judicial custody till 14-12-2012 after getting bail from Hon’ble Supreme Court which also indicate that the assessee was deprived off to comply with the orders of the above authorities. This entire story indicates that the because of involvement in criminal offences mentioned above and judicial custody, the assesseee was not aware of Incomes taxes hovering upon him.
ITAT held that delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision on merit as to the issue penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act but by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 14-09-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.
‘’1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case.
2. That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to delay in filing of appeal without providing any opportunity of hearing which is against the principles of natural justice.
3. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has also grossly erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal on facts of the case thereby confirming the alleged penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) without appreciating the fact that the appellant had a reasonable cause.
2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee, it is noted from the available records that the assessee had filed an appeal with the grievance that the penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/- was wrongly levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act vide impugned penalty order dated 27-12-2011. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed in his order dated 14-09-2021 that there is inordinate delay of 9 years in filing the appeal by the assessee on the issue of demand raised as well as the penalty amount. The ld. CIT(A) in his order elaborately discussed the issue taking the recourse of various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts holding that there is no sufficient cause which justifiably prevent the assessee in late filing the after an inordinate delay of 9 years. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in view of non-filing the appeal in time by observing as under:-
‘’Thus I hold that, in this case, no ‘’sufficient cause” which justifiably prevented the Appellant from filing the appeal on time and for a period as long as approximately 9 years has been advanced. In view of the above and considering the fact that the law of Limitation is a substantive law the reason for condonation of delay adduced by the appellant are hereby rejected and the aforesaid appeal of the appellant, being barred by limitation is ,therefore, dismissed at the threshold.”
2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assesee filed a brief synopsis of the events praying that the ld. CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit instead of dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of inordinate delay of about 9 years as the assessee was imprisoned to Jail under serious criminal offence which was beyond his control to file the appeal in time for adjudication of the case before the ld. CIT(A). Conclusively, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the delay of approximate of 9 years be condoned in view of the gravity and situation of the assessee’s case and the appeal of the assessee should be adjudicated upon afresh by the ld. CIT(A) on merit.
