CHAMUNDI STEEL CASTING (INDIA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), CHENNAI

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai both dated 08.09.2020 for the assessment year 2011-12.

So far as is concerned, when this appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there is a delay of 484 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay. It was further submission that the assessee is ready to file an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay and thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to file an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of authorities below. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on the ground that the assessee has not filed any affidavit in support of the reasons stated in the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the petition for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find that in the interest of justice and also by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee for filing an affidavit in support of the reasons stated for the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to consider assessee’s plea of delay condonation and after considering the same, the ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file an affidavit in support of the reasons stated in the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

So far as is concerned, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the ld. Counsel prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the sides and gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has noted in para 6.2 it has been stated that in the grounds of appeal, the assessee contested that the order of the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed as much as the Assessing Officer did not give opportunity of being heard before increasing the interest under section 234B of the Act.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.