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) 9, Chennai, dated 20.04.2018 relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000.
2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 281 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By way of filing an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for 2 adjudication. In the Affidavit, the assessee has submitted as under: “1. I am the Court appointed Authorised Signatory of the above company and am fully aware of the facts and circumstances which have resulted in delay in filing the above appeal.
I state that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 20.04.2018 passed u/s.143(3) was received by the Assessee Company on 27.04.2018 and the appeal should have been filed on or before 26.06.2018. However, the appeal was actually filed on 03.04.2019 resulting in a delay of 281 days.
3. I state that subsequent to receipt of order on 27.4.2018, we vide letter dated 8.5.2018 wrote to the Director of Income Tax ( Systems), requesting them to provide facility to raise Miscellaneous Petition online before CIT(A)-9.
4. I state that only a few weeks ago we brought it to the notice of our Counsel the Miscellaneous Petition order dated 20.4.2018 and they advised us that we have to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 143(3).
I state that the Assessee Company is under Provisional Liquidation under the direct supervision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Assessee has to make payments to Public Depositors and Bond Holders and with only Two staff, the Assessee is slowly trying to consolidate and recover dues for the purpose of making payments to over 4692 Public Depositors and 15750 Bond Holders whose dues are pending for over 15 years. Any reduction in Income Tax liability will only help the public.
I state that there are no office bearers to take care of the administrative operations and hence could not assess the overall implications and prepare the papers for filing appeal in time. For this reason the appeal was filed belatedly by 281 days before the Tribunal.
I state that subsequent to the advise of our Advocate, I gave the papers to our Advocate who have prepared the appeal and the same was filed before your Honour. Hence, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor willful. I request that your Honour consider the background and circumstances and condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the circumstances it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 281 days in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits and thus render justice.”
2.1 The ld. DR has not seriously object to the above submissions of the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The only issue involved in this appeal is relating to confirmation of addition on notional basis of lease rentals. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee is a finance company and in a non-operative state and all operations were frozen since 2005 following the attempt to restructure the company under section 391 of the Companies Act. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee was not able to file any details neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A) and filed a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional supporting evidence and submitted that the same may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the issue involved in this appeal.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below and find that the assessee has not filed any relevant details before the Assessing Officer. Even before the ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee has sought for adjournment and no details were filed. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a petition for admission of additional supporting evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Keeping in view of the assessee company’s position, we, hereby admit the additional evidence while setting aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by considering the additional supporting evidence filed by the assessee.