Condonation of Delay – In Genuine cases of human errors while filing the appeal, the AO should ask the assessee so that he/she can correct the errors.
The tax which was collected by the corporate companies or legal entities on their income or capital amount is known as Corporate Tax. This tax generally applicable to:
- Corporate companies doing business in the country with its income.
- Foreign companies who established permanently in the country.
- Companies which are considered to be resident for the tax purposes in the country.
Corporate taxes are generally applied on the net profit, hence corporate companies should hold the tax amount before dividing the profits otherwise, and tax will be deducted from individual dividend profits.
Case on Condonation of delay
An assessee appealed to Assessing Officer on dated 31st December, 2007, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. But the appeal was addressed to Corporate Income Tax (CIT) in the Proforma of Form No.35. And the appeal was sent to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer also accepted the appeal.
As the appeal was addressed to CIT (A), then Assessing Officer sent back the appeal as it was not addressed to him. The appellant must take proper care while addressing and also should file with proper office.
This was not the Revenue Case, which appeal was applied to CIT (A), and there would be any delay for the case, though the Assessing Officer sent the latter to the addressed CIT (A), as on the date 8th February 2008, was in limitation period of time.
But the appellant has applied for the stay for the condonation of delay on 19th August 2008, and it is preceded further till 12th November, 2008, to make the case delay furthermore, which caused the appeal case was pending at CIT (A).
This made the condonation of delay made by the assessee was not intentional and also made an honesty explanation, with proper explanation. Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip Kumar SCC 372 has studied the that, though the law considers the difficulties and the cause of lapse was unintentional, judgement doesn’t considered it as an unintentional lapse. Hence, the honesty explanation provided by the assessee was not sustainable.
Though they considered the mistake made by the appellant of filing the case to wrong address, he should not able to explain the time period he had taken to file the case between 23rd March, 2011 to 12th May, 2011 i.e., the time period at which assessee approached the CIT (A). But till then he requested to the Assessing Officer to forward to CIT (A), but still there would be within the deadline for the assessee to appeal to CIT (A) in case of condonation of delay.
There was only explanation by the assessee about the lapse of time but there was no proper evidence by him. Restoring the appeal to CIT (A) as a fresh disposal and ordered to pay the tax. If not yet paid, then assessee should pay the tax along with the penalty of 10,000/- drawn in the favor of “The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai”.