Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Addl./JCIT(A) for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals were delayed by over 1000 days, and the condonation petition was rejected by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, such as administrative problems and the Covid-19 pandemic, were not sufficient to justify the inordinate delay. The CIT(A)'s order rejecting the condonation petition was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the condonation petition filed for the delay in filing the appeal, and if the reasons provided by the assessee constituted sufficient cause.
Sections Cited
36(1)(va)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1515 & 1516/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Nihon Technology Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Elnet Software City (Module 14), Corporate Circle 4(1), 1st Floor TS 140 Block 2 and 9, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai, TTTI Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai 600 113. [PAN:AACCN4675K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri UR Sriram Shankar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders both dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Addl./JCIT(A) - 12, Mumbai for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take up appeal in for AY 2018-19 for adjudication.
The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified by rejecting the condonation petition filed for the delay in filing the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. At the outset, we note that the CPC Bengaluru made disallowance on account of employees’ contributions towards ESI and EPF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] vide intimation dated 16.10.2019, against which, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 25.02.2025 with a delay of more than 1000 days excluding saving of limitation in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020. The assessee filed an application to condone the said delay, the reasons of which reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in para 4 of the impugned order. According to the ld. CIT(A), the reasoning given by the assessee for the condonation of delay is not sufficient, is neither satisfactory nor sufficient to justify the inordinate delay. On perusal of the said reasons in para 4 of the impugned order, we note that the assessee primarily contested that the said delay was caused due to administrative problem and no proper person to attend the taxation matter. We note that as rightly pointed out by the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, the delay caused due to administrative problem is not a sufficient cause and the said delay is inordinate and no sufficient cause was shown by the assessee. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has given benefit of saving of limitation in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and rightly rejected the reasons explained by the assessee as not sufficient.
6. Before us, the ld. AR Shri UR Sriram Shankar, C.A. could not make out any sufficient cause in explaining the delay on day-today basis except making a statement that the said delay was caused due to Covid-19 Pandemic and administrative problem. As discussed above, the ld. CIT(A) considered the same.
7. It was brought to our notice by the ld. DR that the issue on hand is against the assessee in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and it is justified.
8. In view of our decision in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay, the ground raised on merits before us become academic and accordingly dismissed.
I.T.A. No. 1516/Chny/2025: AY – 2019-20
We find the issues in AY 2019-20 are similar to the facts and circumstances relevant to AY 2002018-19 in , wherein, we have sustained the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee, therefore, we hold our findings would be equally applicable to the assessment year under consideration. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is dismissed.