M/S. BGR INVESTMENT HOLDINGS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/s.BGR Investment Holdings Income Tax Officer, Company Limited, Corp Ward-1(3), No.60, Old No.100, IV Street, Chennai. Abhiramapuram, Chennai-600 018. [PAN: AAACS7054B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.Lavanya, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1058277644(1) dated 28.11.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 446 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that there were several family disputes giving rise to civil cases and management disputes contributing to the impugned delay. The Ld.AR personally assured 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. It was however proposed that cost be imposed for wasting the precious time of the courts. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 21.12.2019. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. It was accordingly requested that the matter be remitted to the Ld.CIT(A) for readjudication. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 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 assesse as to why it could not make compliance before the Ld.CIT(A). Page - 2 - of 3 We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched adequately upon merits of the case. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee shall make necessary compliances and any deviation would be adversely viewed. This order is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19th , June-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार धिरर) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 19th , June-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF

Page - 3 - of 3