TECHNIQUES SURFACES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(1), CHENNAI
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?
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
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
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.
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).
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.
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
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026