Appeal may be condoned for receipt of order by casual worker who left

Brief of the Case

Assessee unaware of penalty order as the same received by a casual worker who left, is a sufficient cause for late filing of appeal – ITAT

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. National Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO that there is no straight jacket formula can be applied to check sufficient reasons for late filing of appeal. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In this case the reason for late filing was that assessee was not aware of the penalty order as the penalty order was received by some casual worker that also left company. It was held that It is a sufficient reason for late filing of appeal.

Facts of the Case

In this case CIT (A) has declined the request of the assessee to condone the delay of eight months and five days. In its written submissions, the assessee has pleaded that it has filed an appeal in the quantum proceedings before the ITAT. In the penalty proceedings, it was requested to the AO that the penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the quantum appeal of the assessee before the ITAT. Thereafter, the assessee did not receive any notice from the AO in the penalty appeal. The assessee was under bonafide belief that the penalty proceedings have been kept in abeyance. However, later on it was revealed that the penalty order was passed by the AO which was also sent on the address of the assessee.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.