SRI BALAJI PAINT COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1025/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The matter was remanded back to the AO to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sri Balaji Paint Company, failed to file its return of income. The AO reopened the assessment and made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 1,12,73,000/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 125 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, and whether the delay was sufficiently caused.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 17.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 06.03.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 25.03.2022.

2.

The effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The assessee is a firm and has not filed its return of income.

1.

The A.O has reopened the assessment and made ex-parte addition of Rs.1,12,73,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 125 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

4.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee submitted that the assessee-firm is a sole proprietorship concern of one Mr. C.A. Raja. It was further submitted that the assessee could not make submissions as the notices were served on the email ID of the firm, and the assessee was not aware of any of the proceedings. The Ld. AR argued that the income added has already been taxed in the hands of the proprietorship concern. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) may be directed to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits in the interest of justice.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we note that there was a delay of 125 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the assessee has provided the reason for the delay, in filling appeal. We have given considerable thought to the matter, and are of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within time, therefore the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal and decided the case on merits. We accordingly, remand the matter back to the file of A.O with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits denovo in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for fresh consideration. In the view of the above, the appeal filed the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 26th day of June, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →