LEISURE AND LIFESTYLE INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by Leisure & Lifestyle Information Services Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the Addl/JCIT(Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [ld. CIT(A)] dated 20.3.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the DCIT/ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore [ld. AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] was dismissed. Therefore the assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us.

The Registry noticed that the appeal is filed late by 277 days by letter dated 10.3.2025 which was responded to by the assessee by letter dated 2.5.2025 filing an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay.

The brief facts of the case show that the appellate order was passed on 20.3.2024 but the appeal was filed before us on 4.3.2025 and therefore there is a delay of 289 days. The reasons for condonation of delay submitted by the assessee are as under:-

The ld. AR reiterated the same facts as stated in the application for condonation of delay and submitted that there is no delay in filing appeal, even if it is, delay is for sufficient cause and therefore the appeal of the assessee should be admitted.

The ld. DR vehemently objected and stated that there is no sufficient cause shown in filing the appeal late by 289 days. It was further submitted that eroding the networth of the company, non-availability of employees cannot be a reasonable cause or sufficient cause for which the delay can be condoned.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of ld. lower authorities as well as the time lines for condonation of delay. In this case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed on 20.3.2024 which was received by the assessee on 25.2.2025 and therefore the appeal was filed on 4.3.2025 which prompted the assessee to say that there is no delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee justified stating that the order was received by the assessee only on 25.2.2025, when in pursuance of the penalty order passed u/s. 270A of the Act the assessee came to know that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order on 20.3.2024. Thus, the appellate order of the ld. CIT(A) was downloaded by the assessee only on 25.2.2025 and thus immediately thereafter the assessee filed an appeal on 4.3.2025. The ld. DR could not show us any reason that the appellate order was received by the assessee prior to 25.2.2025. Thus the statement made by the assessee in Form 36 that there is no delay in filing of appeal remains uncontroverted. The ITAT Registry considered the date of receipt of the order by the assessee and computed the delay and issued a defect memo. Out of abundant caution, the assessee filed petition and requested for condonation of delay, but submitted the fact that the appellate order was served on the assessee only on 25.2.2025 and appeal was filed on 4.3.2025, thus there is no delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the above facts, we admit the appeal of the assessee.

On the merits of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has issued notices on 4 occasions through email, but same were not complied by the assessee and thereafter considering several judgments and judicial

We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not on the merits of the case, which he could have decided. In view of these facts, we restore the appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee on its merits.

In the result, the only ground of appeal against disallowance of Rs.4,90,017 is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.