Case Law Details
Marate Venkateshkumar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Condonation of delay in filing of appeal by Senior Citizen assessee should be allowed if he was unfamiliar with digital systems and faceless scheme
Conclusion: Assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal as he was old and not well acquainted and conversant with the digital system in order to follow up with the income tax notices, which were posted in IT portal. Accordingly, the delay in filing appeal was condoned.
Held: Assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.27,87,500/- into his bank account during demonetization period. Same had been considered as income u/s 69A. Against this assessee went in appeal before NFAC, who had confirmed it. Against this, assessee was once again in appeal. There was a delay of 424 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee had explained that assessee was of 74 years old and not well acquainted and conversant with the digital system in order to follow up with the income tax notices, which were posted in IT portal. Assessee was not aware about any faceless scheme of assessment followed by the department. Assessee had not seen the NFAC’s order in its portal and the same had been came to knowledge of assessee when it received a message about penalty notice issued u/s 270A & 270AAC directing him to file reply in response to the notice issued. Consequent to this, assessee consulted his advocate and taken steps to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Thus, it caused 424 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and prayed to condone the delay. Department strongly opposed the admission of appeal and submitted that assessee was habitual in filing appeal belatedly as the appeal before NFAC also filed belatedly. Hence, no liberal view to be taken on this case and appeals should not be admitted for adjudication. It was held that the courts were empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant was able to demonstrate that there was “sufficient cause” in preferring appeal beyond the limitation period. The Courts had also held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Hence, the question of condonation of delay was a factual matter and the result would depend upon the facts of the case and the cause shown by the assessee for the delay. It had also been opined that generally delays in preferring appeals were required to be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides was imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. Therefore, assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay in filing appeal was condoned.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
