EATHAMOZHY PACCS LTD. Y 10,KANYAKUMARI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGERCOIL

There is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

The effective ground of appeal raised by the assessee is against the dismissal of its appeal in limine by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) on account of delay in filing of appeal, without condoning the same. 4. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bengaluru. The assessee filed its return of income on 23.03.2020 declaring total income at ‘Nil’ after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 70,97,396/-. The return was processed by CPC on 29.09.2020, wherein the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) with a delay of 1080 days. However, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Eathamozhy PACCS Ltd. Y 10

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the assessee submitted that the intimation was issued during the Covid-19 pandemic period, due to which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. It was further submitted that since notice dated 03.03.2025 was issued by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) calling for detailed submissions ground- wise along with supporting documents, the assessee was under a bonafide belief that the delay had been condoned. The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) may be directed to admit the appeal and decide the matter on merits, in the interest of justice. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.), on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 1080 days. The assessee has explained that the intimation was received during the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequently due to unable to appoint the qualified accountant appeal filing delayed. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A), however, did not accept the explanation and dismissed the appeal in limine. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been demonstrated Eathamozhy PACCS Ltd. Y 10