Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J. UMA DEVI, JJ.
Meridian Promoters P. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
ITTA No. 157 of 2019
Decided On : 18-10-2019
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 260A – Appeal against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – On consideration of fact – Condonation of delay – Whether cause shown is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, it is necessary to restate explanation for delay – Whether Tribunal was right in law in dismissing appeal on technical ground by not condoning delay, which was due to genuine causes beyond control of appellant and Tribunal was right in law in passing order without considering merits of case – Held, Contentions of appellant that reasons for delay are beyond control of appellant and that said reasons for delay are on account of ill health of Managing Director of appellant company and accountant's involvement in major accident and that for said reasons Managing Director was not aware of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) –He came to know about the same in month of June, 2017, when he received a phone call from IT officer about pending arrears account of decision passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – Said explanation accepted as sufficient cause for condonation of delay – If explanation accepted and an opportunity is provided to have cause in proposed appeal decided on merits, highest that would happen is that cause would be decided on its merit after hearing parties – In that view of matter, it cannot be said that if delay is condoned after accepting explanation as sufficient cause – Appeal is allowed. (Paras: 18 & 20)
Facts of the case:
On consideration of fact – Condonation of delay – Whether cause shown is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, it is necessary to restate explanation for delay – Whether Tribunal was right in law in dismissing appeal on technical ground by not condoning delay, which was due to genuine causes beyond control of appellant and Tribunal was right in law in passing order without considering merits of case.
Findings of the court:
Contentions of appellant that reasons for delay are beyond control of appellant and that said reasons for delay are on account of ill health of Managing Director of appellant company and accountant's involvement in major accident and that for said reasons Managing Director was not aware of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) –He came to know about the same in month of June, 2017, when he received a phone call from IT officer about pending arrears account of decision passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – Said explanation accepted as sufficient cause for condonation of delay – If explanation accepted and an opportunity is provided to have cause in proposed appeal decided on merits, highest that would happen is that cause would be decided on its merit after hearing parties – In that view of matter, it cannot be said that if delay is condoned after accepting explanation as sufficient cause.
Result: Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
M. Seetharama Murti, J.
1. This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order, dated 26.12.2018, in ITA. no. 449/VIZ/2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam "SMC" Bench, Visakhapatnam.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri Bendi Raviteja, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant; and, of Ms. M. Kiranmayee, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. We have perused the material record.
3. The facts, which lead to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The appellant is company engaged in the business of construction works. It filed its original return of income for the assessment year 2008-09, on 07.10.2008. The case was taken up for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act', for short] was first issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued. Ultimately, the respondent had disallowed Rs. 37,23,478/- inter alia for the reason that the appellant had not produced sufficient information and/or the information produced by the appellant is not acceptable. When the appellant submitted the vouchers for the said amount claimed by the appellant, the respondent rejected the same assigning a reason that the vouchers are self made vouchers and/or are defective in nature. The total demand payable by the appellant was determined at Rs. 15,48,816/-. The computation of the same has been reflected in the assessment order, dated 30.12.2010, passed by the respondent. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in ITA. no. 0782/CC-2, Vizag/CIT(A)-I/20-11. However, the said appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the respondent. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal', for short] in ITA. no. 449/Viz/2017 with a delay of 1632 days. The appellant also filed an application, supported by an affidavit, for condonation of the delay explaining therein the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal by the order, dated 26.12.2018, which is impugned in this appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the matter. Therefore, the appellant - assessee has no opportunity to establish his case on merits. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal is filed.
4. In the grounds of appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised:
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in passing an order without considering the merits of the case?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not adjudicating the disallowance made by the CIT(A), a sum of Rs. 37,23,478/- towards sub-contract charges and labor charges cumulatively?
5. On the above substantial questions of law, which are involved, we have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. The short but important question, which incidentally falls for consideration, is-
7. The case of the appellant in support of the request for condonation of delay as stated in the application filed before the Tribunal is this:
8. The Managing Director of the appellant company had some serious medical issues like frequent presence of giddiness. He suffered from abnormal situation requiring dependence on fellow persons for daily chores. He suffered loss of balance. He required serious medical attention from time to time. He was treated for vertigo. Regular check-ups and necessary tests were undergone by him from time to time, particularly during the period from 27.08.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
