Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed with a significant delay due to changes in tax consultants and a director's illness. Both the assessment orders and the first appellate orders were dismissed in limine for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons genuine and sufficient. The appeals were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 25,000 per appeal, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing appeals and whether to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against two separate orders of CIT(A) - NFAC both dated 09.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2013- 14.
& 3177//CHNY/2024 2. There is a delay of 256 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit of the Director stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reason stated for belated filing of these appeals is that assessee had engaged new tax consultant and there was no proper communication between the present and old consultants and due to lack of co-ordination and oversight, necessary compliance could not be made within the prescribed time limit. It was further submitted in the affidavit that Deponent’s brother, who was also a Director in the assessee company was suffering from severe illness during the course of appellate proceedings, and he unfortunately expired in September, 2024 after prolonged illness.
After perusing reasons stated in the affidavit, we are of the view that there is genuine and sufficient reasons shown for belated filing of these appeals and no latches could be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that both the assessment as well as first appellate orders have been dismissed in limine, for non- prosecuting the cases. The CIT(A) in the impugned orders have & 3177//CHNY/2024 stated that in spite of several opportunities have been given to the assessee, the assessee failed to furnish submissions / documentary evidences in support of its case.
The Ld.AR submitted that assessee’s undertaking was sold as a going concern and issue in question on merits is with regard to computation of capital gains on slump sales. It was stated that the assessee’s business had been completely stopped and there was no staff available, which led to non-compliance of the hearing notices issued from the Office of the AO and the CIT(A). It is therefore, prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its cases before the AO.
The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that if the matter is remanded back to the AO, the assessee may be ordered to pay cost, since before the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A), there was non-compliance by the assessee to several notices issued.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused material on record. The assessee had not complied with various notices issued from the Office of the AO. Consequently, assessments in the instant cases and order imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was ex- & 3177//CHNY/2024 parte, qua, the assessee. Before the First Appellate Authority, the appeal raised was dismissed in limine, for non-prosecuting the case. The assessee’s reasoning for non-appearance before the AO and CIT(A) is that after the slump sale, assessee company was not carry on any business and there was no staff on the rolls of the company, which led to non-compliance to various hearing notices issued from the office of AO and CIT(A). We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to various notices issued from the Office of the AO and CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case, subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in each of the appeals, to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.25,000/- for each appeal shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the said payment before the AO. The AO, on production of aforesaid payment of cost by the assessee, shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the & 3177//CHNY/2024 Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th February, 2025.