M/s Aruna Motors Private Limited, Vijayawada` The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), , Vijayawada

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a significant delay of 632 days in filing an appeal by M/s. Aruna Motors Private Limited. The delay occurred because the assessee's original authorised representative, who was entrusted with the matter, passed away. The assessee was under the impression the appeal had been filed, only discovering otherwise upon verification, leading to the late filing with a new representative. The ITAT found the explanation credible and not indicative of a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings, citing precedents where similar delays were excused.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 149/VIZ/2020
(Asst. Year :2012-13)

M/s. Aruna Motors Private
Ltd., D.No. 48-10-12/1,
Service road, Ramachandra
Nagar, Opp. NTR Health
University, Vijayawada.
PAN No. AAICA 1800 H
(Appellant) 

vs.

ACIT, Circle-2(1),
Vijayawada.
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri A.Chakradhar, CA.
Department by : Shri N. Gopi Krishna, Sr.DR

Date of hearing : 21/04/2021.
Date of pronouncement : 29/04/2021.

O R D E R

PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07/08/2018 impugned herein passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, “ld. CIT(A)”] Vijayawada u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2. There was a delay of 632 days in filing the appeal. The assessee stated in its petition that the tax matters were entrusted to the Authorized Representative Shri A.C. Gangaiah, CA who had expired on 06/10/2016 and the said Authorized Representative did not file the appeal and the assessee was under the impression that appeal was already filed. On verification of the fact from the office of Late Mr. Gangaiah it was ascertained that the appeal was not filed, hence, he has taken up the matter with another A.R. who has filed the appeal which caused the delay of 632 days and therefore requested to condone the delay.

3. We have heard both the parties and gone through the affidavit and condonation petition filed by the assessee. The assessee established the fact that due to lapse of the Ld.A.R of the assessee who had expired, the appeal could not be filed.The facts stated in the affidavit / condonation petition were not controverted by the Department. The assessee is not going to get any benefit by delaying the appeal and it was not the case of deliberate attempt or the intention of the assessee to file the appeal belatedly. Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs DCIT, Circle(2)1, Hyderabad, in ITTA No.20/2020, dated 13/08/2020 condoned the delay of 154 days and held that while condoning the delay, the court should be liberal and show utmost consideration to the suitor if the explanation does not smack of malafide or it is not put forth as part of dilatory strategy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on similar facts of having no knowledge of passing the order, in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax in civil appeal No.6671 – 6676 of 2010 dated 7th November 2019, has condoned the delay of 1754 days.

To know more in details find the attachment file