SAI SAKSHI AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD,PUNE vs. NFAC, DELHI

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 21.11.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi which inturn is arising out of the Penalty order dated 25.03.2022 u/s.270A of the Act.

When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee.

After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the record placed before us, I notice that the instant appeal has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) in limine, without condoning the delay of 673 days occurred before him. On perusal of Form No.35 submitted before the ld.CIT(A), I notice that the reason for delay of 673 days in filing of appeal was stated to be mainly on account of the fact that the assessee company has incurred heavy losses during F.Y. 2016-17 leading to significant moderation in the financial performance. The decision was further deteriorated on account of covid-19 pandemic outbreak prevailed all over the country when the whole country witnessed lockdown and the financial services were severely hit. Most of the persons turned conservative limiting the growth and focused solely on collections and recovery but due to liquidity crunch and the poor financial services the assessee company was unable to move forward. He also stated that the Accounting records maintained in a software by the company also got distorted. Considering all these facts and also taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC and the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 309 where delay of 1876 days was condoned, we find that the case of the assessee needs to be taken up with liberal approach as there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the said delay of 673 days before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication of appeal.

Since the issues on merits have not been decided by the ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in connection with delay, we in the interest and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to remit the issues on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to adduce any evidence as it deems expedient and ld.CIT(A) shall pass the order interms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to provide correct email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.