Mukesh Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, has remanded two appeals filed by assessee Mukesh Mittal back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appeals concerned penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-08 and 2009-10. The primary issue before the ITAT was the CIT(A)’s refusal to condone a significant delay in filing the appeals.
The Assessing Officer (AO) had imposed penalties after making additions to Mittal’s income following assessments under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act. Mittal’s appeals before the CIT(A) were filed with a delay of over 32 months. The assessee sought condonation, attributing the delay to a change in legal counsel, stating a “bonafide belief” that the previous counsel had filed the appeals. However, the CIT(A) rejected this explanation, observing that the assessee had legal professional guidance and that a mistake by counsel was an insufficient reason for condonation. The CIT(A) cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramlal & Ors vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd AIR 1962 SC 361, emphasizing that a party must explain the delay for each day beyond the limitation period, and that condonation is a discretionary matter, not a right. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without addressing their merits.
