Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, contesting the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals suffered from significant delays in filing, attributed to reasons such as change of accountant due to demise of the Managing Director, and hospitalization of the accountant.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's justification adequate. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed it to re-adjudicate the matters after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay and without deciding on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
for AY-2013-14 and 2014-15 contesting the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority indicated Column-E, herein below:-
S. Appeal AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. Nos. A B C D E F DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S ITA Manoharamma / 250 / 2024-25 / Hotel Investments 1 2013-14 Income Tax No.1326 / 1074570949(1) dated Private Limited, Officer, Chny / 2025 17.03.2025 No.3, Corp Ward- Sarangapani DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S Street, T.Nagar, / 250 / 2024-25 / 2 2014-15 Chennai. 1346 / Chny Chennai-600 017. 1074571519(1) dated [PAN: / 2024 17.03.2025
AACCM8686M] DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / / 250 / 2024-25 / 3 2014-15 1347 / Chny 1070498241(1) dated / 2025 20.11.2024 2.0 It has been noted that in there is a delay of 97 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that there was an ongoing prolonged litigation with the creditors and consequently part of its premise was sealed. Further, the accountant who was in-charge of affairs, had resigned causing the delay. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that its right of natural justice has been violated in as much as the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed its appeals without condoning the delay occurred in the filing of the appeals. The Ld.Counsel argued that the assessee had justified grounds for the delay caused in filing of the appeals. The reasons for delay were given as per Column-F in the tabular chart herein below. The Page - 2 - of 5 management was not aware of the limitation dates for filing of the appeals which contributed to the impugned delay. The appellant assessee has argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has summarily rejected the assessee’s appeal holding delay attributable to unjustified grounds. The Ld.Counsel requested for being given one final opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that on the merits of the issues involved, the matters were largely covered in its favour and hence assessee had fair chance of succeeding before the Ld.First Appellate Authority. The Ld.Counsel further gave a personal assurance that full compliance would now be made before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel submitted the following details qua delay occurred in filing of the three appeals.
Period of delay in filing appeal which was not S. Appeal CIT(A) Order AYs Appellant condoned by the No. Nos. Details Ld.CIT(A) / Reasons for delay A B C D E F DIN & Order 600 days. Change of No.ITBA / APL / M Accountant on account of ITA / 250 / 2024-25 / demise of Managing 1 2013-14 1074570949(1) Director and earlier No.1326 / Manoharamma dated 17.03.2025 Accountant not handling Chny / 2025 Hotel Investments properly papers to Private Limited, successor’s accountant No.3, DIN & Order 300 days. Sarangapani ITA No. No.ITBA / APL / M -do- Street, T.Nagar, 2 2014-15 / 250 / 2024-25 / 1346 / Chny Chennai-600 017. 1074571519(1) / 2024 [PAN: dated 17.03.2025 AACCM8686M] DIN & Order 402 days. Chartered ITA No. No.ITBA / APL / M Accountant Mr.Srihari 3 2014-15 / 250 / 2024-25 / Kannan was hospitalized 1347 / Chny 1070498241(1) for a long time. / 2025 dated 20.11.2024
Page - 3 - of 5 4.0 The Ld.DR argued in favour of order of Ld.CIT(A) by placing reliance upon the impugned appellate orders. It was fiercely contested that as this is the second round of litigation as the assessee has travelled upto Hon’ble Madras High Court, no relief deserves to be accorded. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee’s compliance before the Ld.AO has also been inadequately deficient. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assessee as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. 6.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assessee and to pass a speaking order, in accordance with law. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay occurred in filing of appeals in these cases. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if deemed necessary. The assessee shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assessee side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de Page - 4 - of 5 1346 and 1347 supra. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in 1346 and 1347 supra are allowed for statistical purposes. 7.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1326, 1346 and 1347 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 20th , Aug-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 20th , Aug-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF
Page - 5 - of 5