Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 arose from an order of the CIT(A) which did not admit the appeal for condonation of delay of 720 days. The assessee's counsel had passed away, and the appeal was unrepresented.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for deposit with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to adjudicate the case on merits, considering the circumstances of the counsel's death.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. ITO बनाम/ H-37-J, 2nd floor, Manthoppu Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083. Chennai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/TAN No. AAKCS-2196-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Lekha (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Smt. D. Babitha (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 22-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 03-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2016. The registry has noted delay of one day in the appeal which stands condoned. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain additions / disallowances.
Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the appeal was not admitted by Ld. CIT(A) for want of condonation of delay of 720 days. The Ld. AR has placed on record death certificate of its counsel Shri N. Devanathan and stated that the email-id of counsel was mentioned in Form No.35. Consequently, the appeal went unrepresented. The Ld. AR pleaded for disposal of appeal on merits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123) held that condonation of delay is matter of discretion of the court. The delay of very long range could be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. The primary objective is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advocate substantial justice. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but to seek the remedy promptly. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by the reason of legal injury. Keeping these principles in mind, we condone the delay before first appellate authority and direct Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits. The same shall come at a cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to Ld. CIT(A) who shall proceed for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd February, 2025