Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.778 & 780/Chny/2020 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Chamundi Steel Casting (India) The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., New No. 77 (Old No. 3), 1st Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Seshachala Gramini Garden Street, Corporate Circle 1(2), Santhangadu, Chennai 600 019. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACC3074F] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28.12.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 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 ITA No. 780/Chny/2020 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
2 I.T.A. Nos.778 & 780/Chny/20
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.
3 I.T.A. Nos.778 & 780/Chny/20
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 I.T.A. No. 788/Chny/2020 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.
4 I.T.A. Nos.778 & 780/Chny/20
Moreover, the assessee did not put its appearance before the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. After considering the entire order passed by the ld. CIT(A) as well as the prayer of the ld. Counsel before us, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Even the assessee has also not properly represent its case before the ld. CIT(A). Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that one more opportunity shall be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after affording meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th December, 2021 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 28.12.2021 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु�/CIT, 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.