KUMUDHA FACTORIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 229/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 March 2023AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The authority was directed to reconsider the condonation of delay in light of the submitted facts and adjudicate on merits if acceptable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 were dismissed by the first appellate authority for want of condonation of delay. The assessee argued that appeals were initially filed manually and then e-filed, with some delay for AY 2012-13.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of appeals due to a lack of condonation of delay. The tribunal considered whether to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The grievance of the assessee in both the captioned appeal is same i.e., dismissal of appeals by first appellate authority for want of condonation of delay. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by revenue. 2. Upon perusal of case records, it could be seen that the assessments, in both the years, have been framed u/s 144 of the Act. Upon further appeal, first appellate authority dismissed the appeals in & 230/Chny/2023 - 2 - limine on the ground that no condonation petition was filed by the assessee.

3.

The Ld. AR has submitted that initially the appeals were filed manually. However, as per revised rules, the appeals were e-filed. As per Ld. AR, the manual appeal for AY 2013-14 was filed on 28.04.2016 which is within time. It was also submitted that the appeal was e-filed on 13.06.2016 which is also within time considering CBDT Circular No.20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. However the appeal for AY 2012-13 was field with a delay which may be considered sympathetically.

4.

Considering the fact of the case, we deem it fit to restore both the appeals to the file of first appellate authority to reconsider condonation of delay in the light of facts submitted before us and if found acceptable, adjudicate the appeals on merits. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case.

5.

Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th March, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →