REGI MATHEW,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 19(1), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ीमनुकुमार िग र, ाियकसद! एवंी जगदीश, लेखा सद! के सम(
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2858/Chny/2024
िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2014-15
Regi Mathew,
No.3, Vallalar Street, Indian Bank
Colony, Padmanaba Nagar,
Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094. Vs.
The Dy.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non Corporate Circle-19(1),
Chennai.
[PAN: AABPM 0959P]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate
HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
22.01.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
29.01.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 26.08.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 19.03.2022. :- 2 -:
There is a delay of 06 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is condoned accordingly.
The only ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 98 days by the Ld. CIT(A).
The assessee is a contractor and has not filed return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O has passed order exparte u/s. 144 of the Act and made addition of entire contract receipts and initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. The A.O in exparte order passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act has levied penalty for concealment of income of Rs. 1,88,31,796/-. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 90 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee has submitted that there was sufficient cause in filing appeal, but Ld CIT(A) :- 3 -:
has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. The Ld. AR has further submitted that the quantum appeal, has bearing on penalty appeal has been set aside by the Hon’ble Bench to Ld CIT(A) therefore the penalty appeal should also be set aside .
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. There was a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has submitted the reason for the delay, stating that it was due to his parents' ill-health caused by Covid- 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation and dismissed the appeal in limine. We have given considerable thought to the matter, and are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal and decided the case on merits. Therefore, we remand the matter back to file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits. In the view of the above, the appeal filed the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. :- 4 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced on 29th January, 2025. (मनु कुमार िग र)
(Manu Kumar Giri)
ाियक सद! / Judicial Member
(जगदीश)
(Jagadish)
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा सदय
सदय
सदय
सदय /Accountant Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 29th January, 2025. EDN/-
आदेश क ितिल प अ े षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF