ATHUR SUBRAMANYAM ,CHENNAI vs. ADIT , BANGALORE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These two appeals by the assessee are arising out of
separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income
Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
vide appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 / 1043862059(1) /
1043862105 (1) both dated 15.07.2022. The assessments were
completed by the ADIT., CPC., Bengaluru, for the relevant
assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 and issued intimation
u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”)
vide orders dated 21.11.2010 & 07.01.2011 respectively.
Since, the issue involved in these appeals is common, for the
2 ITA Nos. 654 & 655/Chny/2022
sake of convenience, they were heard together and dispose off
by this consolidated order.
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.”
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
3 ITA Nos. 654 & 655/Chny/2022
consequently raised demand. Aggrieved, the assessee
preferred appeal before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) dismissed appeals for both the years as un-
admitted. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the
Tribunal.
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
4 ITA Nos. 654 & 655/Chny/2022
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.
5 ITA Nos. 654 & 655/Chny/2022
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.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both
assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th March, 2023
Sd/- Sd/- (जी. मंजुनाथ ) ( महावीर �संह ) ( G.Manjunatha ) ( Mahavir Singh ) लेखा सद%य / Accountant Member उपा�य�/ Vice-President चे(नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Date: 30.03.2023 DS
आदेश क� ��त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आयु.त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु.त/CIT 5. ,वभागीय ��त�न2ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.
