VENUGOPAL GAJENDRAN ,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,NON-CORPORATE WARD 10(2), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, �ाियक सद3 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद3 के सम:। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.16/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Venugopal Gajendran Income Tax Officer No.19. Old No.12, Non-Corporate Ward-10(2), बनाम/ M/s.Gajendra Electric Company, Chennai-34. Vs. Parthasarathy Street, Ayyavoo Colony, Chennai-600 029. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACPG-1822-A (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (./थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Anandd Babunath (CA)- Ld. AR ./थ-कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, (Addl. CIT)- Ld. Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31-10-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02-11-2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

2 ITA No.16/Chny/2021 2. The Registry has noted delay of 258 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee wherein it has been stated that the assessee faced adverse medical conditions which resulted into late filing of appeal. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, opposed condonation of delay and drew attention to the fact that the appeal before ld. CIT(A) was also filed with a delay of 150 days. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee could not furnish any evidences to substantiate its claim. In the above background, the appeal is disposed off as under. 3. From perusal of the assessment order, it could be seen that assessee has been saddled with addition of contract receipts of Rs.60.23 Lacs since the same was reflected in Form 26AS but the same were not admitted by the assessee in his return of income. The assessee preferred further appeal with delay of 150 days. Considering the affidavit of the assessee, the delay was condoned. However, no evidences were furnished by the assessee to show that such income did not accrue to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed against which assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that contract receipts accrued in subsequent years and the same has accordingly been offered in those years. 4. Considering the facts of the case and the conduct of the assessee, we find that reasons adduced for late filing of the appeal are not very convincing. Even the appeal before first appellate authority was filed with a considerable delay of 150 days. However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be deposited by the assessee to

3 ITA No.16/Chny/2021 Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to Ld. CIT(A), who shall adjudicate the appeal afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its stand. 5. The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 02nd November, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद3 /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद3 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

चे<ई/ Chennai; िदनांक/ Dated : 02-11-2022 DS आदेशकीZितिलिपअ8ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु� (अपील)/CIT(A)4. आयकरआयु�/CIT 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR6. गाड�फाईल/GF