SERVOCRAFT HR SOLUTIONS P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3444/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 April 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee to file a condonation petition. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the condonation petition.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred due to a 23-day delay. The assessee claimed the delay occurred because appeal papers were mixed with other documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without properly considering the assessee's condonation petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 18.04.2022Pronounced: 20.04.2022

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in dated 11.12.2018. The assessment was framed by the DCIT, Company Circle VI(2), Chennai u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 18.01.2013.

2.

At the time of hearing, none is present for assessee and it is noticed that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as time barred and beyond limitation. It is noted that the delay was of 23 days before CIT(A) and the assessee has filed condonation petition stating that the appeal papers were mixed up with other papers. We noted that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. He observed in para 6.3 as under:-

1.

6.3 The burden is on the assessee to reasonably explain day-to-day delay and establish that there existed reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. However, the “Delay condonation Petition” was only a letter and not an affidavit and it was signed by the A.R. and not by the assessee. Moreover, the “Delay Condonation Petition” was vague and lacks any specific contentions and fails to explain day-to-day delay in reasonable manner.

3.

We have heard ld. Senior DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the view that the assessee should have been allowed to file condonation petition by the CIT(A). When these facts were confronted to ld. senior DR, he fairly agreed that matter can go back to the file of CIT(A) first on adjudication for condonation petition in case assessee files condonation petition and subsequently to decide the issue on 3 merits, in case delay is condoned. In term of the above, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh consideration.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the court on 20th April, 2022 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →