SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

Thus, the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal was due to the reasons mentioned above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.”

On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee and medical certificate as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the Page. No 2

Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn and filed its original return of income declaring a total loss of Rs.2,20,13,789/- on 21.10.2020 for the A.Y.2020-21. As per the Form-3CD filed for the A.Y. 2020-21 the statutory auditor of the Company has certified that the following payments were made by the assessee company on which tax at source was not deducted as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

These expenses were reported by the Tax Auditor in his report under clause 21(b) of Form-3CD filed on 21.10.2020. In addition to above, the assessee has disallowed 30% of the above-mentioned expenditures under line 8(b)-Amount disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non- compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B in Part A Ol-Other Information schedule in the return of income filed on 21.10.2020. The payee

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), while filing the appeal, there was a delay of 153 days. With regard to the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee furnished the reasons for such delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and sought for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A), rejected the assessee’s plea for condonation of delay by holding that assessee failed to furnish all the details / evidence in support of its claim and accordingly dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: -

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the demand of Rs.13,27,500 raised by the assessing officer u/s 201(1) of the Act towards non-deduction of tax from various expenses amounting to Rs.1,33,35,810 and demand of Rs.5,31,486 raised towards interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act.

Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”

At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal stating that reasons for delay was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Further, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning the delay and except stating that delay was not satisfactory, rejected the condonation petition. Ld.AR further submitted that the affidavit explaining the cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has been furnished before the Tribunal and prayed that the Ld.CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.

Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly placed reliance on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the condonation petition. Ld. DR strongly opposed for condonation of delay.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee has observed as follows: -

On a perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) order, we find that before rejecting the condonation petition, Ld.CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to explain the cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the assessee and thereby set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for considering the condonation of delay on the basis of the reasons explained by the assessee. Needless to say,

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