Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:
This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai in I.T.A.
No.2/CIT(A)-6/2012-13, dated 07.04.2017. The assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – II(3), Chennai for the Assessment Year 2010 – 2011 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide order dated 31.12.2012.
2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal of the Assessee is time barred by 638 days and the Assessee has filed condonation petition along with an affidavit. It is also noticed that this appeal came up for hearing atleast ten times and none is present from the Assessee’s side for the reason that the notices issued returned un- served with a postal remark as “unclaimed” or “left”. We also noticed from the records that the notices are sent as in the address given in Form No.36, Column No.10 and even the same address is given on the petition of condonation of delay but on such address, the postal remark is either “left” or “unclaimed”. In such a circumstance, we proceed further to decide this appeal as ex-parte qua Assessee.
3. When learned Senior Departmental Representative was put to answer on the delay condonation, i.e.638 days, the petition was referred. The learned Counsel for the Assessee read out the petition which reads as under:
“The Petitioner herein is M/s. Info-Drive Software Limited, a company engaged in the business of development of computer software, business process outsourcing, hardware and software consultancy services, and is assessed to income tax with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2(2), Chennai – 600 034.
At the outset, the Petitioner has filed the present appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, dated 07.04.2017, which was received by the Petitioner / Appellant only on 07.04.2017. Therefore, for the first time the Petitioner was aware of the order passed
confirming the additions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 on receipt of the order on 07.04.2017.
It is submitted that, the Director of the Appellant Company was suffering from renal failure and was undergoing severe hardship due to the same. It is submitted that the Director was undergoing treatment for more than two years prior to his date of death. Thereafter, owning to his ill health, the Director could not even attend to his work properly and died on 27.06.2016.
It is submitted that subsequently the files pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009 – 2010 were retrieved from the Late Director’s custody only during the month of October, 2018. Thereafter, the Officer In-charge of the Petitioner Company, immediately approached its Chartered Accountant in the month of November, 2018. The delay in filing the present appeal due to the genuine difficulties of the Petitioner’s Director owing to his ill health and death and the same deserves to be condoned.
The Petitioner thereafter identified a Counsel to file the present appeal by December 2018 and the Counsel sought for all the relevant papers and certain clarifications, which were provided from time to time by the Petitioner. The Counsel thereafter perusing the papers, shared a copy of the draft with the Petitioner only by the end of February 2019. The appeal is now being filed on 06.03.2019 with a delay of …….. days.
5. The Petitioner states that the delay in filing the appeal was neither willful nor wanted and if the delay is not condones, the same would cause severe hardship to the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has a good case on merits and would be put to great loss and hardship if the delay is not condoned, particularly owing to the fact that the Petitioner has been sincerely and diligently pursuing his case before all lower authorities.
The delay in filing the appeal is solely due to the severe hardship caused to the Petitioner on account of its Director suffering from renal failure and related complications and the same is a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay occasioned.
It is thus kindly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to :
(i) Condone the delay of ………..days in filing the present appeal; (ii) Admit, hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law; (iii) Pass such further or other order or orders that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Dated at Chennai on this 29th day of February 2019.”
Even, this petition is supported by an Affidavit and the reasons stated reads as under:
“1. That I, a Director in M/s. Info-Drive Software Limited, the appellant company in the Income Tax Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2010 – 2011 and I am aware and in-charge of the day-to-day running of the business.
2. That all contents of the petition for Condonation of delay filed before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and contains no mis-statements.”
Learned Senior Departmental Representative stated that there no mention about the number of days and the column of number of days is left blank. Even the assertions made in the condonation petition are not supported by any of the evidences and hence he opposed the condonation of delay.
4. After hearing to the learned senior DR and ongoing through the petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered view that there is no sufficient cause for condonation
:: 5 :: of delay. Hence, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed on this count only and un-admitted.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.