M/S. RESULTS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(3), CHENNAI

There is a delay of 151 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.

The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit 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.

At the outset, The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the impugned assessment order involved in the appeal has been set aside by Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act, vide order dated 30.03.2022, therefore the order of Ld CIT(A) does not survive and is infructous. The Ld AR further submitted that the assessee challenged the order u/s. 263 of the Act and the Hon’ble ITAT, has quashed the order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263. The Ld AR further submitted that the A.O has passed fresh assessment order in compliance with the directions of the Ld. PCIT, and the same has been quashed by Ld. CIT(A) in view of order of Hon’ble ITAT order dated 13.04.2023. The Ld. AR has contended that the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) has become infructuous, as it was based on order that was no longer in existence. The Ld. AR, further argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without providing proper opportunity.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the order Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessment in this case was passed on 30.01.2015 accepting the return of income of Rs.8,10,51,130/-.

Subsequently, the A.O reopened the assessment and passed assessment order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act assessing total income at Rs.10,99,98,199/-. The assessee filled appeal against the above order and Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition observing that assessee has not complied with the last notice issued on 19.05.2024 and that assessee during appellate proceeding also did not make any submission supporting its claim of expenses which were disallowed in 147/143(3) of the Act order. The Ld AR has argued that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is infructous as the assessment order passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act has been set aside by Ld. PCIT. We do not agree with the Ld. AR’s contention, because the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act setting aside the impugned assessment order has been quashed by the ITAT in dated 13.04.2023 and therefore, the assessment order passed by A.O u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act becomes alive and survives. Consequently, the order of Ld. CIT(A) against the above assessment order also survives. We, therefore reject the Ld AR’s argument.

Now coming to the order of Ld CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT(A) has issued notice on 20.01.2021 and 17.11.2021, which were not complied. The period was pertaining to Covid-19. The assessee has made part compliance of notice dated 19.03.2024 and not complied with notice dated 19.05.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowances for the reason that the assessee has not made any submission in support of his claim of expenses. In view of above, we deem it fit to remit the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to submit all the evidences in support of the claim of expenses disallowed by the A.O.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11th day of June, 2025 at Chennai.