BASKARAN,TRICHY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 140 days and 91 days for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15 respectively in filing the appeal and filed petitions for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit. By referring to the above petitions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton. It was prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeal for adjudication. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Considering the petitions filed by the assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee HUF is engaged in the business of multi commodity exchange broker operating in the name of Goodwill Commodities. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 12.03.2016 returning an income of ₹.30,18,940/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. After considering the details furnished against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 14,12,2017 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.39,53,441/- after making disallowance towards payments made to two companies incurred for software expenses of ₹.9,34,501/-. Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of rent payment of 3 & 752/Chny/23 ₹.2,64,000/- towards non-deduction of TDS. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeals as no sufficient cause was shown by the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeals filed before the ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was not properly substantiated. It was submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was suffering from severe heart ailment and therefore, there was delay in online filing of the appeals for both the assessment years. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the case on merits and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and may be directed the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the case on merits by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that there was delay of 156 days and 178 days in filing the appeal for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15 respectively before the ld. CIT(A) for which the assessee has stated that due to the ill health of the assessee, there was a delay in filing the appeal and this statement was not in dispute. Since it was not possible to discuss the tax matter or any other important matters with a person ailing from heart disease seeking expert opinion, we are of the considered opinion that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we set aside the appellate order and direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay for both the assessment years as well as adjudicate the appeals on merits by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.