Case Law Details
Chowlor Matada Swamy Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Chowlor Matada Swamy vs DCIT, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Bangalore addressed an appeal regarding a significant delay in filing with the CIT(A). The delay of 140 days was attributed to the assessee’s misunderstanding about the prerequisites for filing the appeal. Initially, the assessee believed that a 20% deposit of the tax demand was necessary before lodging the appeal. This belief was compounded by the seizure of ₹24.50 lakhs in cash during a search at the assessee’s premises, leaving him without available funds. Following a penalty notice, the assessee sought new advice from a different tax consultant, who clarified that the deposit was not a condition for appeal, but the delay had already occurred by then.
Upon review, the ITAT found the reasons provided by the assessee to be credible and not merely excuses. The court acknowledged the possibility that the cash seizure created a legitimate financial hardship that impacted the assessee’s ability to act promptly. Given the circumstances and the fact that the delay stemmed from misguidance by a tax consultant, the ITAT determined that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to accept the appeal and consider the case on its merits, emphasizing the principles of justice and fairness in tax proceedings.
Ultimately, the ITAT’s decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes underscores the importance of accurate tax advice and the impact of external circumstances on compliance timelines.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A)-11, dated 30/05/2024 vide DIN No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1065257486(1) for the assessment year 2019-20.
2. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 140 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the learned CIT-A. It was explained by the assessee before the learned CIT-A that the assessee was under the impression that the appeal before the learned CIT-A can only be filed if the assessee deposits 20% of the tax demand in the income tax department. According to the assessee, there was no cash available with him as cash of ₹ 24.50 lakhs was seized during the search at the premise of the assessee. However, when the assessee received penalty notice, the assessee consulted some other tax advocate/ advisor who guided the assessee that it is not a precondition to deposit 20% of the tax demand for filing the appeal before the learned CIT-A. However, in this process the delay has occurred which was not condoned by the learned CIT-A.
3. However, on appeal before us, we note that the reason given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal cannot be treated as unreliable/ unrealistic or bogus simply for the reason that there was handsome cash found from his premises which was seized during the search proceedings. Thus, there is a possibility of shortage of cash with the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee on the wrong advice of the tax consultant could not filed the appeal within the stipulated time before the learned CIT-A. Thus, considering all the facts, we’re of the view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the time permitted under the provisions of law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we direct the ld. CIT-A to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit of the case of the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court virtually on 26th day of August, 2024
Author Bio
