NO.8729 KEELVANI PACCS LTD.,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(5), ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 738/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 July 2023AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to statutory audit and lack of qualified personnel. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-payment of tax on returned income. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P, resulting in Nil returned income and failed to make representations during appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the Nil returned income and the reasons for non-representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 25-10-2021 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 14-12-2019. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not pay the tax due on returned income. The assessee failed to make any representation during appellate proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P and the returned income was Nil.

2.

The Registry has noted delay of 538 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition wherein it has been submitted that the assessee was held up with completion of statutory audit and it did not have qualified accountant to look after the proceedings. Considering the fact that substantial delay fall within lockdown situation arising out of Covid- 19 Pandemic, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

Since the first appellate order is an ex-parte order and the appeal has been dismissed overlooking the fact that the assessee had filed nil return of income, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद!/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे5ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 25-07-2023 DS आदेशकीYितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. !"थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु>/CIT 4. िवभागीय!ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडCफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →