ATHUR SUBRAMANYAM,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 654/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 March 2023AY 2009-20105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as the Revenue could not establish service of the intimation. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed returns claiming deduction u/s.80JJA. The CPC disallowed this deduction and issued intimation u/s.143(1). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) after a significant delay, claiming non-receipt of intimations.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to non-receipt of intimation, and if so, the matter should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80JJA,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 30.03.2023

by this consolidated order.

2.

The first common issue in these two appeals of the assessee is as regards to order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal in limine without admitting. For this, the assessee has raised ground no.1 which is common in both the years and relevant ground raised for 2009-10 reads as under:-

“The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in not condoning delay in filing of appeal by the appellant in spite of the fact that delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but for sufficient and reasonable cause beyond control of the appellant.”

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts & circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 28.07.2010 for assessment year 2009-10 and 27.09.2010 for assessment year 2010-11, after claiming deduction u/s.80JJA of the Act. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of collecting, processing and treating of bio-degradable waste. While processing return by the CPC., Bengaluru u/s.143(1) of the Act for both the years, disallowed claim of deduction u/s.80JJA of the Act and consequently raised demand. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A).

4.

The CIT(A) dismissed appeals for both the years as un- admitted. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

We noted that the assessee filed e-return for assessment year 2009-10 on 28.07.2010 and for assessment year 2010-11 on 27.09.2010, which was processed by the CPC., Bengaluru, u/s.143(3) vide intimation issued u/s.143(1) dated 21.11.2010 and 07.01.2011. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) for both assessment years on 01.03.2021 and according to CIT(A), there is delay of 3722 days for assessment year 2009-10 and 3675 days for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee submitted that intimation for both the years were never received, because the assessee has given e-mail ID /address of one Accountant, Mr.Raghunathan, who was employee of the assessee and left service of the petitioner without updating anything on the pending assessments or demands. The demand came to the notice of the assessee only in January, 2021, assessee’s tax consultant, Mr.V.Naveen noticed from income-tax portal that there is demand outstanding against the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 at Rs.37,69,740/- and for the assessment year 2010-11 demand of Rs.33,25,430/-.

Thereafter, the assessee gave another e-mail address and intimation u/s.143(1) was served only on 19.03.2020 and accordingly, appeals were filed only on 01.03.2021. Once, there is no intimation received by the assessee u/s.143(1) of the Act, and even now, the ld Sr.DR could not file any evidence of service of intimation on the given mail i.e., e-mail of Mr.Raghunath [catrlncoit@gmail.com] at page 3 of the paper book. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that even on 19.03.2020 only intimation copy of rectification order for these two assessment years were sent by the Assessing Officer. It is presumed like that. When these facts were confronted to Ld. Sr.DR, he fairly conceded that matter may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A), who will decide the issue on merits. In our view, the Revenue could not establish service of intimation u/s.143(1) on the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay and admit both the appeals filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and direct him to decide the issue on merits.

However, we see that there is laxity on the part of the assessee. Therefore, we impose cost of Rs.10,000/- for each assessment year, thereby the assessee has to pay total cost of Rs.20,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Subject to the above condition that the assessee will pay cost of Rs.20,000/-, the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A), who will decide the issue afresh, on merits in accordance with law.

More judgments on Section 80JJA

All 81 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80JJA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →