Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 266 days. The delay occurred due to ongoing insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, during which the assessee's company had no employees. The NCLT permitted the withdrawal of insolvency proceedings, and the professionals were then authorized to pursue taxation matters.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 266 days, noting a reasonable cause for the delay due to the insolvency proceedings. It was also held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the merits of the case, and therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the CIT(A) order was ex-parte, necessitating a fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 30.6.2023.
There is a delay of 266 days in this appeal for which the ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon the application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit.
Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below and opposed the application for condonation of delay.
Certain dates, which are mentioned in the affidavit and are relevant for deciding the condonation of delay are as under:
4.1 Perusal of the above sequence of events would show that on 20.7.2020, NCLT has appointed Mrs. R.B. as IRP Professional for the insolvency proceedings going on before the NCLT. These proceedings were continued till the date of the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 30.6.2023. In fact, the NCLT has permitted the assessee to withdraw the insolvency proceedings on 23.10.2024 and thereafter the professionals of the assessee company have got authorization to pursue the taxation matters. We are of the view that there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 266 days and proceed to decide the matter.
Referring to the grounds of appeal, ld. Counsel for the assessee interalia contended that the order of ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and hence in the interest of justice, the matter may kindly be restored to the file of AO. It has been pointed out by the ld. Counsel that during the pendency of proceedings before the NCLT, no employees were there in the Company, after the appointment of IPR.
6. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below, however, could not seriously object to the contentions vis-à-vis restoration of appeal before the CIT(A).
Ithaca Estates Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We hereby observe that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the merits of the case in terms of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. It is settled position of law that the ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose the merits of the case as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra reported in 279 CTR 614 (Bom.). Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh. Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) will provide a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th Jan, 2025