COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. S DURAIPANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Tribunal, wherein the delay of 534 days in filing the appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was allowed, along with another six appeals, which were dismissed as infructuous.

(2.) The respondent/assessee in all these cases, initially, filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, with a delay of 97 days. However, while preferring the said appeals, the assessee had not paid the tax due at the time of filing the appeals and since the appeals have not been filed as required under Section 249 (4) (a) of the Income Tax Act, the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thereafter, the assessee paid the admitted tax due and filed another six appeals with a delay of 534 days. However, all those appeals came to be dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee preferred twelve appeals before the Tribunal. Insofar as the six appeals relating to the delay of 534 days, which were filed after payment of admitted tax, the Tribunal was of the view that reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee and placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., 2002 3 SCC 195, allowed the appeals of the assessee and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deciding the matter on merits. Consequent to the order remitting the above matters back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing the appeals on account of the delay of 97 days for non-compliance of Section 249 (4) (a) was dismissed as infructuous as the relief has been granted in one set of appeals. As against the abovesaid order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court by preferring the present appeals contending that the Tribunal ought not to have taken a lenient view in the matter when there is no sufficient cause shown by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals.

(3.) Heard Mr. M.Swaminathan, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the documents as also the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal available on record.