TRIDENT COATINGS PVT.LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),, CHENNAI

(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : S/Shri S.Sridhar & G.Tarun Advocates. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the 17 dated 29.06.2018 of the Leaned Commissioner of Income Tax, (herein after “CIT(A), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 2315 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse has committed the delay on account of multiple external factors beyond its control. Thus, it was argued that part of the delay was attributed to Covid-19 and another major part on account of misrepresentation by erstwhile Chartered Accountant, Smt.S.Vidya. 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 submitted that in the event of condonation of delay, cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the court. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

3.0 The only issue contested by the appellant assessee through its grounds of appeal is regarding an addition of Rs.51,12,839/- made by the Ld.AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that out of the above disallowance amounts concerning director’s remuneration and salary do not call for any disallowance within the meanings of section 40(a)(ia) per se. The disallowance for salary was reported to have been brought upon statute w.e.f AY-2015-16 and hence not applicable to this year. As regards rent It was stated that since the payee had paid the tax on his rental income the disallowance was unwarranted. It was also submitted that the Ld.AO Page - 2 - of 4 and Ld.CIT(A) have passed non-speaking orders without any application of mind. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to Ld.AO for verifying the nature of payments and to allow those which are eligible.