BRIGGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-9(1), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.492/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2016-17
M/s.Brigge Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
No.2/570, Jagannathan Street,
Balaiah Garden, Madipakkam,
Chennai-600 091. v.
The ITO,
Corporate Ward-1(1),
Chennai.
[PAN:AAGCB 1996 B]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri R. Lokesh, CA
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Smt. Pushpa Hemachand,
JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
15.04.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
26.05.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 15.05.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of more than ‘568’
days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed an Affidavit i.e. by M/s.Brigge Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
:: 2 ::
Shri Sampath Kumar Jagannathan, Director of the assessee company along with condonation of delay. Perusal of the same reveal that the assessee company was incorporated on 27.01.2015 and has been struck off from the list maintained by ROC/Ministry of Corporate Affairs; and therefore, the officials/accountants who were handling the legal affairs of the assessee-company left it [the company]; and because of which, e- mails/notices/impugned order went unnoticed, and the Ld.AR also pointed out that they later only found that certain notices/orders went to the ‘SPAM’ account which resulted in the assessee not noticing the existence of the passing of the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A); and by the time the assessee realized that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order dated 15.05.2023, already more than ‘550’ days have elapsed.
Thereafter, the assessee immediately handed over the relevant papers to the Chartered Accountant who immediately filed appeal before this Tribunal. Thus the delay happened in filing of the appeal and therefore, he prays for condonation of delay stating that it was not deliberate and that assessee doesn’t gain from non-filing of appeal on time. The Ld.DR doesn’t want us to condone the delay. However, taking note of the fact that the assessee was a startup company which as of now stands struck off from the list of companies by the action of the