Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 765 days against an order passed by the CIT(A). The reasons provided for the delay included restructuring of partners and the managing partner's hospitalization due to cardiac ailments. The assessee submitted an affidavit for condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the restructuring of partners was an administrative matter and not a valid reason for delay. The medical reasons provided were not supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the delay could not be condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds of restructuring of partners and medical reasons for the managing partner, without sufficient documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2018-19 M/s. Alert Security Services, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 106, Sowrimuthu Street, Red Fields, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 045. Non Corporate Circle 4, [PAN:AASFA2624E] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 765 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay by stating following reasons:
1. 1. That the petitioner operates as a partnership firm under the trade name M/s. ALERT SECURITY SERVICES filed his return of income for the said assessment year on 19.09.2018 showing a total income of Rs.1,50,59,929/- and assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre by making an addition of Rs.2,92,93,994/- on 04.03.2021.
2. That the petitioner/appellant had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) based on various grounds of appeal
. A notice under section 250 of the Act was issued on various dates. The petitioner had filed his submissions before the CIT(A). The order u/s 250 of the Act was passed on 21.11.2022.
3. That the appellant had decided to file an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai Bench on the matters which were not allowed in the order dated 21.11.2022.
4. That the appeal has not been filed due to an issue between the partners and inclusion of her daughter in the firm. After the disputes, the partnership deed was reconstituted to include Mrs. Gowri Sankaranarayanan (daughter of one of the partners Mr. Periannan) as one of the partners. After this restricting it took some time to settle with the roles and responsibilities for the day-to-day administration of the firm.
5. In the meantime, the Managing Partner, Mr. Periannan (father of the other two partners) had cardia ailments and was hospitalized. Even after the discharge from the hospital, he could not resume his regular works immediately. The other partners had to take care of him and the business parallelly.
6. That in this way there is a delay of 765 days for which a condonation application is field along with the appeal.
7. That delay in filing the appeal is because of genuine reasons and was not intentional.
8. That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal.
3. The ld. AR Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA, by referring to the above reasons stated in the affidavit, prayed for condoning the delay and admits the appeal for adjudication.
The ld. DR Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT submits that the first main reason stated in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay of more two years is restructuring of the partners of the assessee company.
He vehemently argued that restricting of the partners of the assessee company is purely administrative work and has nothing to do with filing of appeal before the ITAT and otherwise also, the assessee has not produce any evidence. The second reason stated in the affidavit is that the managing partner was under cardiac ailments and hospitalized, but, however, the assessee could not produce any evidence in support of the above reason. Thus, the ld. DR pleaded that the huge delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned since the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause for the delay with documentary evidence.
We have heard both the parties and perused the affidavit filed for condonation of delay of 765 days. The impugned order under section 250 of the Act was passed on 21.11.2022 and the assessee was required to file an appeal within 60 days from the end of the month in which the appellate order was passed. However, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT on 27.02.2025 with a delay of 765 days. We note that as contended by the ld. DR, restructuring of partners of the firm is purely administrative work and nothing to do with filing of an appeal. Further, we note that the managing partner was hospitalized and under cardiac ailments, but, however, the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence in the form of medical certificate. We note that the assessee could not establish reasonable cause for the delay with any piece of evidence. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30th April, 2025 at Chennai.