TECHNIQUES SURFACES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 702/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 October 2021AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the assessee's negligence and absence, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 17 days, attributing it to a pending rectification application. The assessee also failed to appear for hearings before the ITAT and had been negligent in attending appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee deserves another opportunity for hearing despite negligence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

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

For Appellant: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
For Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

The aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2012- 13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 19/12/2018 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO], u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 29/12/2017. 2. The Registry has noted a delay of 17 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of the sworn affidavit of director of the assessee company. In the affidavit, the delay has been attributed to the fact that the assessee preferred rectification application before filing appeal to the Tribunal. Since the disposal of the application was taking time, the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal so as to avoid further delay. Keeping in view the period of delay and the contents of the affidavit, the bench formed an opinion that the delay was to be condoned. We order so.

3.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The perusal of order sheet entries would show that none is appearing for assessee since past several occasions. The Ld. DR sought dismissal of the appeal on the ground that no effective submissions were made by the assessee even before Ld. CIT(A).

4.

After going through the impugned order, though we concur with the submissions of Ld. DR that the assessee remained negligent in attending appellate proceedings, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is set-aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by way of speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate his stand failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of material on record.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11th October, 2021. (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) उपा"" / Vice President लेखा सद" / Accountant Member चे<ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 11/10/2021 TLN

आदेशकी5ितिलिपअ7ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ-/ The Appellant 1. 01थ-/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयुC(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयुC/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय0ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, चे<ई / DR, ITAT, Chennai 5. गाडHफाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →