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

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 01.10.2013 admitting income of ₹.13,23,700/-. This case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS. A notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued on 02.09.2014 and served on the assessee on 03.09.2014.

After considering the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2016 assessing taxable income of the assessee at ₹.39,40,010/- after making addition towards disallowance of rent and disallowance of advertisement expenses under section 40a(ia) of the Act since the assessee has not deducted TDS under section 194I and 194C of the Act respectively.

The assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 325 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal 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 appeal 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 further submission that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and explained that due to prolonged illness of Shri Baskaran, the Karta of the HUF, who was managing the entire business has been prevented from participating in the day-to-day activities of the business for a long time. It was also submitted that there was no intentional delay in preparing and filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee and not wilful. 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 appeal 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).

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 325 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and explained that due to prolonged illness of Shri Baskaran, the Karta of the HUF, who was managing the entire business has been prevented from participating in the day-to-day activities of the business for a long time. It was also submitted that there was no intentional delay in preparing and filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee and not wilful. Since it was not possible to discuss the tax matter or any other important matters with a person due to his prolonged illness, it is opined that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned. Thus, the appellate order is set aside and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay as well as adjudicate the case on merits by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09th June, 2023 at Chennai.