SUGUNA FOODS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1 , COIMBATORE

The Registry has noted a delay of 217 days in the appeals, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee did not press this ground before Ld. CIT(A) and there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The facts as narrated in the affidavit are that the for AY 2012-13, the assessee received capital subsidy of Rs.1174.23 Lacs which was treated as capital receipts. The Ld. AO, reduced the capital subsidy from the cost of assets thereby reducing the claim of depreciation. The assessee preferred further appeal against the same and this ground was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) as not pressed. This order was passed on 21.08.2018. However, similar claim was allowed by Ld. AO in assessment proceedings of AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 u/s 143(3) order dated 29.12.2016. Post disposal of appeal for AY 2012- 13, revisionary proceedings u/s 263 were invoked by Ld. Pr. CIT, Coimbatore vide order dated 21.03.2019 for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 to redo the assessment by reducing the subsidy from the cost of asset thereby reducing the claim of depreciation. The revisionary proceedings were invoked since this ground was not pressed by the assessee during appellate proceedings of AY 2012-13. The same triggered the assessee to file the appeal before Tribunal on this issue for AY 2012-13 also and consequently, there was delay in filing the to 1622/Chny/2019 - 3 - appeal. The appeal has ultimately been filed on 23.05.2019 as against stipulated date of 20.10.2018. In the above background, Ld. AR submitted that the delay was for bona-fide reasons and there was sufficient cause for late filing of the appeal.

After due consideration of rival submissions and in the background of aforesaid factual matrix, the bench formed an opinion that the assessee was able to establish sufficient cause for late filing of the appeal. Another factor is that this issue spans over subsequent two years also and therefore, for the sake of consistency, the same has to be adjudicated on merits only. Considering the same, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Since Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed this ground as not pressed and has not rendered any decision on merits, the issue is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

The appeals for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 assails the validity of revisional jurisdiction of appropriate authority u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is withdrawing these two appeals and filed a letter from the assessee to that effect. Considering the same, both these appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. to 1622/Chny/2019 - 4 -

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas the other two appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced on 09th June, 2022.