Daryapur Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory v. ACIT (2021) 277 Taxman 155 / 200 DTR 417 / 320 CTR 456 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Delay of 3052 days-Period of limitation would commence from date when affected party got knowledge of decision in question and it would not commence from date when order was passed-Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal for non appearance, it has to decide on merits-Cost of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the assessee for each year of appeal. [S.254 (1) 260A]

Tribunal by an order dated 1-2-2013 dismissed assessee’s appeal against an assessment order making addition to income of assessee for default of appearance by assessee.  On 19-11-2019 Tax Recovery Officer proceeded to attach immovable properties of assessee for tax recovery. Thereafter, on 30-12-2019 assessee filed an application before Tribunal to set aside its order dated 1-2-2013 and rehear appeal on merits along with an application for condonation of delay of 3052 days in seeking restoration of appeal Tribunal dismissed both of these applications. On appeal the Assessee contended that Tribunal was not justified in dismissing appeal of assessee merely for absence of any representation on behalf of assessee.  It further contended that period of limitation would begin to run from date when assessee got knowledge of order i.e. on 19-11-2019 and not from date of passing of order. On appeal the Court held that Tribunal has to dispose of an appeal on merits and it cannot dismiss same solely on account of non-appearance of a party, thus, impugned order of Tribunal dismissing assessee’s appeal merely for default of appearance was unjustified and same was to be set aside. Court also held that period of limitation prescribed in section 254(2) would commence from date when affected party got knowledge of decision in question and it would not commence from date when order was passed.  Accordingly period of limitation would commence only from 19-11-2019 which was date of obtaining knowledge of order dated 1-2-2013 and, accordingly, impugned application filed by assessee was not barred by limitation. Court also held that   from December 2019 till March 2020, the applicant had taken various steps in its attempt to have the appeals restored. The present appeals have been filed on 22-6-2020 in the midst of the lockdown. The aforesaid events are thus found sufficient to condone the delay subject to imposing costs on the applicant. Accordingly the delay in filing each appeal stands condoned subject to costs of Rupees Ten thousand per appeal to be paid to the Revenue within a period of three weeks. The applications are allowed and disposed of in aforesaid term. (AY. 2002-03 to 2004-05)