OMR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, citing the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) (SC). Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. The Tribunal also found that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Considering that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and the lower authorities had not examined the issues on merits, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, the impugned issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to submit necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, OMR Developers Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee had declared a loss of Rs. 63,09,823/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the entire loss and assessed income at Nil. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 320 days, attributed to the COVID-19 lockdown. The present appeal before the ITAT faced a significant delay of 1584 days, with the assessee attributing it to a change in management in November 2024 and unfamiliarity with tax procedures. The AO's order resulted in no tax demand, but penalty proceedings were initiated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1584 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and if so, whether the appeal should be admitted for adjudication? (Question of fact, turning on the interpretation of sufficient cause for delay). 2. Whether the impugned issues, which were not examined on merits by the lower authorities, should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contentions: The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, including a change in management in November 2024, unfamiliarity with tax procedures, and a prior bona fide impression that no immediate appellate remedy was required as the assessment resulted in Nil tax demand. The assessee relied on the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) (SC) for condoning the delay. The assessee also argued that due to the change in management, tax matters could not be handled immediately, and sought an opportunity to represent the case properly. The assessee prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & MS. PADMAVATHY.S
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 15.12.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. OMR Developers Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -:
The assessee is a company and filed the return of income for AY 2017- 18 on 26.10.2017 declaring a
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
