Mistake of Lawyer or Accountant is a Good Reason for Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal | ITAT

Case Details: Chirag P. Thummar v. PCIT - [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1628 (Surat-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Pawan Singh, Judicial Member & Dr. A.l. Saini, Accountant Member
  • Rasesh Shah, CA for the Appellant.
  • Ravinder Sindhu, CIT(DR) for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under section 143(3). The assessee’s case was taken up for revision under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT), who passed an order under section 263.

The assessee filed an instant appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed on 263 after a delay of 1740 days. The assessee submitted that the appeal was delayed because the income tax practitioner did not advise the assessee to file an appeal against the order passed under section 263.

The matter was then taken up for hearing by the Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee filed the appeal late because the income tax practitioner did not advise the assessee to file an appeal against the order under section 263 under the bonafide belief that the order under section 263 was not appealable. The power to condone the delay is discretionary, and the discretion must be judicially exercised. The words’ sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice where no negligence, inaction, or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. Thus, the mistake of the lawyer or accountant may be a good reason for condoning delay.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Chaman Lal Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Punjab State [1961] 12 STC 643 (Punj.);
  • Central Bank of India v. Devdatt Shukla AIR 1995 MP 214;
  • Savita Sadi Centre v. Bank of Boroda AIR 1998 (Bom) 231
  • Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank (2000) 9 SCC 33 (para 10) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307/441 ITR 722 (SC) (para 7)
  • Garg Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [IT Appeal Nos. 2519 to 2521 (Kol.) of 2017, dated 18-4-2018] (para 8)
  • Chaman Lal Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Punjab State [1961] 12 STC 643 (Punj.) (para 10)
  • Central Bank of India v. Devdatt Shukla AIR 1995 MP 214 (para 10)
  • Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank (2000) 9 SCC 33 (para 10)
  • Savita Sadi Centre v. Bank of Boroda AIR 1998 (Bom) 231 (para 10).