What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for a delay of 118 days. The assessee then filed a further appeal before the ITAT with an inordinate delay of 614 days, citing the company becoming defunct and staff resignations.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, and if so, on what terms. The secondary issue was the restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Eh Building Consultancy Pvt Ltd vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

आयकरअपीलसं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. E.H Building Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ITO Flat No.1C, First Floor Corporate Ward-2(1), बनाम/ Gowri Chitra Garden Complex Chennai. Vs. No.88/4, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCE-8062-E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11-04-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6,Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 13.03.2017 in the matter of assessment framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015. The assessee being resident assessee is stated to 2 - be engaged in consultancy services.In this appeal, the assessee aggrieved by confirmation of certain additions and disallowances.

The Registry has noted inordinate delay of 614 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by affidavit of the Director of the assessee company. It has been submitted that the assessee became a defunct company and entire staff in Accounts Department had resigned from the company and office of the company was predominantly closed. Accordingly, the appeal could not be filed in time. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee’s appeal before Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed in the impugned order for want of condonation of delay of 118 days. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under.

Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be gathered that the assessee was saddled with certain additions and disallowance. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, the appeal was dismissed for want of condonation of delay of 118 days. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee was negligent and did not attend the proceedings despite being provided with as many as 15 opportunities of hearing. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for condonation of delay and sought another opportunity of hearing keeping in view the adverse situation being faced by the assessee. Keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. However, this concession would come at a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The assessee is directed to deposit the same with ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of 3 - one month from the date of receipt of this order. The receipt / proof thereof shall be furnished by the assessee to the registry as well as Ld. CIT(A) forthwith. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication by way of speaking order. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose-off the appeal on the basis of material on record.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18thApril, 2022.

EH BUILDING CONSULTANCY PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments