| Question And Answer | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | CONDONATION FOR DELAY IN FILING ITAT APPEAL |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Querist: | MOTI |
| Answered by: | Dr .K. Shivaram Senior Advocate |
| Tags: | condonation of delay, writ petition |
| Date: | May 15, 2022 |
ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL WITH ITAT AFTER DELAY OF 1300 DAYS WHICH WAS DUE TO ADVISE GIVEN BY CA NOT TO FILE .
LATER DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS , NEW LEGAL COUNSEL ADVISED TO FILE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITAT AS LEGAL ISSUES WERE INVOLVED.
HENCE APPEAL WITH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION AND AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR. LAND ACQUISITION 167 ITR 471 AND 3 JURISDICTIONAL ITAT DECISIONS IN FAVOUR WERE CITED.
DELAY FOR CONDONATION WAS REJECTED AND APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. WHILE DOING SO ,NONE OF THESE DECISIONS WERE CONSIDERED AND FOR REJECTION NO SPEAKING ORDER WAS PASSED.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS ?
WHETHER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION CAN BE FILED ?
ANY OTHER WAY TO COME OUT OF THIS SITUATION?
The assessee can file writ petition before the High Court at the earliest . The High Court may condone the delay . In Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT ( 2017) 398 ITR 250 /160 DTR 33 / 251 Taxman 270 / 299 CTR 463 ( Bom)(HC) , the delay of 2984 days in filing the appeal due to wrong advice of Chartered Accountant was condoned . The Court also imposed cost of Rs 50000 .
In V. K. Sreenivasan v. CIT (2012) 70 DTR 341 / (2013) 213 Taxman 17 (Mag)(Ker.)(HC) the Court held that Court held that ,appeal under section 260A is not maintainable against order passed by Tribunal declining condonation of delay. Court also observed that , even though a statutory appeal under section 260A is not, maintainable against the orders of the Tribunal declining to condone the delay, the aggrieved person can probably invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and probably, in appropriate cases, the High Court can grant relief.
No purpose will be served by filing miscellaneous application .