Sample Grounds of Appeal Before the Hon’ble ITAT for Condonation of Delay u/s 249(3) of the Act When There Is Sufficient Cause with the Assessee and Condonation Was Rejected by the CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi
Grounds of Appeal
In the case of Sh. XXXXXXXXX for the AY 2017-18
Before the Hon’ble ITAT, XXXXX, XXXXX
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, despite there being sufficient causes with the assessee for not filing the appeal in time as per section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which obstructed his action to file the appeal within the time limit.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, attributing it to constraints faced by the assessee rather than negligence or inaction, preventing the timely filing of the appeal within the 30-day limit.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, disregarding that old age is not a personal problem and entirely denying the principle of natural justice to the assessee.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, attributing gross negligence to the Income Tax Department and imposing an unjust tax liability on an innocent individual who had never opened a bank account or deposited a large sum of cash with XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Bank, XXXXX, XXXXXX.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to recognize that no negligence occurred on the assessee’s part in treating the AO’s order as serious. The cause for delay was beyond the control of the assessee.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, overlooking the fact that the seeker of justice, having been a Government official, had acted justly towards the people and Government during his tenure.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, not acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. The delay was not due to dilatory tactics, lack of bona fide, deliberate inaction, or negligence on the part of the appellant, who always acted diligently and remained active.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to recognize that the term “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, overlooking that the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a self-contained enactment and section 249(3) provides for condonation of delay at the discretion of the CIT(A), with sufficient cause for delay as envisaged in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, not considering that the law of limitation is substantive and impacts the rights and obligations of a party. This principle should be appropriately applied depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, granting an extension to the assessee for filing an appeal as there are “sufficient causes” for the delay of XXX days.
11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to provide justice to the appellant while attending to the respondent, who showed gross negligence in deciding the case under section 144 of the Act and even in the reopening of the assessment.
12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, ignoring the cogent and proper evidence with the assessee that caused the delay in filing the appeal.
13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, not acknowledging that there was no malafide or deliberate intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with a delay of XXX days, and that the delay in filing the appeal within the limitation period under section 249(2) was due to sufficient causes.
14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, as the Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, not considering the assessee’s status as an elderly and retired government official of class-1 status, who never intended to violate the provisions of the Income Tax law of India. Due to certain constraints, he was unable to file the appeal within the 30-day period and lacked correct advice, thus failing to provide accurate information and explanations during the assessment proceedings.
16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, as the assessee received the ex-parte assessment order under section 144 very late and, lacking proper advice, was unable to file an appeal with the Ld. CIT(A) within the 30-day period after receiving the order.
17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, even though the Ld. CIT(A), having reviewed the paper book and complete written submissions, especially when the assessee does not have a bank account with XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX Bank, XXXXX, XXXXX as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded in the case of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) should have recognized the gross injustice occurring to the assessee and should have condoned the delay so that the appeal could be judged on its merits.
18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, not recognizing that the delay was not intentional, deliberate, or due to negligence on the part of the assessee. Confusion over the allegations and the determined demand, with no fault of the assessee, also contributed to the delay in filing the appeal, as it took some time for the assessee to prepare for the tax liability of such magnitude, given that he had no income from undisclosed sources.
19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, holding that a party should not suffer due to no fault of his own, or because of a mere mistake or oversight on the part of his legal or tax advisers or relatives.
20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, not appreciating that the term “sufficient cause” should be interpreted pragmatically in a justice-oriented approach rather than a technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay, as illustrated in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Kati Ji AIR 1987 SC 1353. A pedantic approach should be avoided while dealing with an explanation of the delay, applying the doctrine in a rational and pragmatic manner.
21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, presupposing that the delay was deliberate or the applicant was guilty of culpable negligence, ignoring that no litigant deliberately delays the filing of his application, especially when the party had been a government servant leading a retired life.
22. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to consider the other grounds filed with the CIT(A), NFAC, which are now being pleaded before the Hon’ble ITAT, XXXXX, XXXXXX.
A remedy is sought from the Hon’ble ITAT as the case is meritorious on the legal front.
There is neither negligence nor a lack of regard for the legislature of the country, but a lack of computer knowledge and communication skills on a smartphone by the assessee, which is beyond a shadow of doubt and which caused the delay in filing the appeal, along with other sufficient causes.
That the other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.
That the assessee craves leave for the addition, modification, and deletion of any other grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
Prayer
The delay in filing the appeal with the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC, may kindly be condoned.
The tax and interest imposed may kindly be deleted, considering the grounds of appeal submitted with the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, and the same grounds and paper book are submitted here.
Appellant
Author Bio
