Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 30.11.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 29.09.2018 admitting total
2 T.A. No.93/Chny/23 income of ₹. 1106,27,45,010/-. The assessee filed revised return of income on 31.10.2018 admitting total income of ₹.1075,29,19,300/-. The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru processed the return of income filed on 31.10.2018 and issued intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 11.03.2019. In the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the DCIT disallowed ₹.31,25,13,445/- being bonus paid to employees before the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Against the disallowance made, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) – 15, Chennai on 10.04.2019. The appeal is pending. The ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru processed the revised return of income filed on 30.03.2019 and issued intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 23.03.2020. In the intimation, the ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru disallowed ₹.30,98,25,693/- being bonus paid to employees before the due date for filing the return of income though the same is allowable under section 43B of the Act. The assessee had claimed credit for TDS of ₹.20,70,99,112/-. However, the ACIT allowed credit for TDS of ₹.20,70,27,024/- and disallowed credit for TDS of ₹.72,088/-.
Against the above disallowances of ₹.30,98,25,693/- & ₹.72,088/-, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 71 days in filing the appeal before the ld.
3 T.A. No.93/Chny/23 CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) refused to admit the appeal for adjudication as the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that no defect memo was served on the assessee by notifying the defect in filing the appeal. Thus, it was submitted that the assessee may be permitted to file the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR has not seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel that the assessee was not notified about the defect in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and thereby, it was sought for permission to file the reasons before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above facts, we set aside the appellate order and direct the ld. CIT(A) to consider the condonation petition as may be filed by the assessee and decide the issues on merits in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The 4 T.A. No.93/Chny/23 assessee is also directed to file the condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A) for his consideration.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th February, 2023 at Chennai.