M/S. VAAS AUTOMATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai dated 30.11.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.

The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 219 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition in support of an affidavit to condone the delay. By referring to the condonation petition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company has been merged with M/s. Bray Controls India Private Limited and hence had to relocate to its place to business to the present address. It was further submission that the assessee company was not in receipt of any communication on hearing or CIT(A)’s order despite updating the records in the online portal immediately on relocation and moreover, the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) 11 was transferred to the office of the ld. CIT(A) 7 for which no communication was issued. It was further submission that the information about the closure order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was learnt from the online portal that was mailed to an expired mail ID of the company. Thus, the ld. Counsel has pleaded that delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and it was beyond the control of the assessee and prayed that the delay may be condoned and admitted the appeal for hearing. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of 219 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed on 30.11.2017 by making disallowance of bad debts written off at ₹.1,78,11,798/- due from overseas customer. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. It was further submission that without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has passed exparte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee and thus, the ld. Counsel prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate his claim before the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. DR has not raised any objection.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by presuming that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal since there was no representation when the appeal was posted for hearing on 13.11.2018. By filing an affidavit duly notarized, the assessee has stated that there was no wilful default and had no intention to delay the proceedings, but for the bonafide reasons explained in the affidavit and beyond the control of the assessee and prayed for an opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above and in order to meet the ends of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

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