a)The AO made assessment on assessee under section 143(3) and made additions to its income. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions.
b)Further, the Tribunal rejected appeal of assessee against the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that there was delay of forty five days in filing the appeal. The aggrieved-assessee filed the instant writ.
The High Court held in favour of assessee as under:
1)The assessee could not be held entirely responsible for the delay. It had engaged a firm of Chartered Accountants to represent it. It had prosecuted the appeals for the other three years duly and diligently and, in fact, successfully. 2)It instructed the CA to file the said appeal prior to the last date
for filing the same. Even if there was any delay, it was not on account and certainly not on account of the assessee. The assessee's manager had resigned at a crucial stage was another factor in its favour.
3)The assessee had been put to incur considerable expenses and effort merely to obtain a hearing on merits. The assessee could, by no stretch of imagination, be said to have waived off its rights. This was clear from the fact that the assessee had duly and diligently prosecuted the appeals in respect of the three other assessment years.
4)But for the unfortunate circumstances, this appeal would also have been heard on merits in the normal course. The assessee was not entirely at fault for the delay and negligence in prosecuting the fourth appeal. Thus, there was no justification in denying the assessee an opportunity of having its appeal considered on merits. Even assuming that there was some negligence on its part, the same had caused the revenue no prejudice whatsoever. - BAJAJ BHAVAN OWNERS PREMISES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. V. ITAT  45 taxmann.com 231 (Bombay)