SURYANSH HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHORDHA vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has taken the delay of 2339 days. Ld AR has filed written submission as follows:

It was the submission that the assessee was under liquidation and the property of the assessee was also sold under SERFAECI Act. Ld AR has placed before us the copy of the sale certificate issued by the UCO Bank dated 31.8.2019. It was the submission that as the assessee was under substantial financial distress, the assessee had not cooperated even in the assessment proceedings and assessment order was passed exparte on 28.3.2016. It was the submission that the said assessment order was not served on the assessee insofar as the property of the assessee was under seizure by the respective banks. It was the submission that the certified copy of the assessment order had been obtained on 7.12.2020. It was further submitted that after the receipt of the certified copy of the order, which is evident from the fact that in the appeal filed, what has been filed is the certified copy of the assessment order. It was the submission that the Director of the assessee company was suffering from COVID and without considering even that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of limitation, which was extended upto 28.2.2022, the appeal was P a g e 4 | 6 filed actually on 17.9.2022 Thus there is delay of 201 days. It was the submission that the delay may be condoned and the issues be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Ld AR undertakes at the Bar that the assessee will cooperate in the set aside proceedings.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that if at all, the issues requires to be restored, then same should be restored to the file of ld CIT(A) for reconsidering the condonation of delay. It was the submission that the assessee should be careful of its statutory commitments.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has not been served the assessment order and it is the certified copy, which is served on the assessee. If the delay in filing of the appeal is considered from the date of service of the certified copy and the limitation as suspended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is considered, the delay is 201 days. The assessee has also given substantial evidence to show that the assessee was under financial distress and Director of the assessee company was suffering from COVID. This being so, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). As it is noticed that the assessee has not represented before the Assessing Officer, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. P a g e 5 | 6

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.