ORDER

Date : 24-09-2020 Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department (NER).

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved, by the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner as an assessee under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act an assessment was made by the Assessing Officer seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.34,06,170/-.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 250 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dibrugarh. However, by order dated 26.02.2019, the appeal preferred by the petitioner/assessee was rejected on the ground of delay by holding that the grounds urged for condonation of delay that the delay had occurred due to the pendency of a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 154 and the grounds taken in the appeal have no connection.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the ensuing Covid-19 pandemic situation, as the petitioner is a resident of Gurgaon, Haryana he could not take proper legal advice in time and pursue the adequate remedy available. Therefore, there was some delay in approaching the Court.

5. Mr. S. Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that since the petitioner is before the Court the matter may be decided on merits and permitting to the Department to file the required counter-affidavit necessary.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it is seen that the petitioner had approached the Department authorities for availing the statutory remedy but for the dismissal of her appeal preferred on the ground of delay he is unable to avail the statutory remedy.

7. A perusal of Section 249 of the Income Tax Act reveals that sub-Section (3) of Section 249 provides that the Commissioner(appeals) may admit an appeal after expiration of the period (period within which the statutory appeal is to be preferred), if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.

8. It is also seen from the memo of appeals at page No. 77 of the writ petition that the authorized representative who was authorized to file the appeal indicated the grounds for the delay at serial No. 15 of the appeal memo form. The grounds taken by the appellant are extracted as under:-

9. The impugned order dated 26.02.2019 is extracted as under:-

“Instant appeal was instituted on 06.06.2018 and is directed against order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was passed by the ITO, Ward-2, Tinsukia on 29.02.2017.

2. Order appealed against was stated to have been served on 01.01.2018. Appeal should have been filed by 31.01.2018. There is delay of over four months in filing the appeal. In the condonation application, reason given for the delay was stated to be pendency of assessee’s rectification application u/s 154 regarding interest u/s 234A/234B/234C. No other reason is given for filing the belated appeal.

3. Delay in filing appeal can be condoned if there is good and sufficient reason which caused the delay. Pendency of application u/s 154 for rectifying the interest chargeable u/s 234A/234B/234C, in my view is not good and sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal. The Appeal is therefore not admitted. It is discarded at the threshold itself. Since the online appeal is shown as pending for disposal in ITBA system, the same is treated as dismissed