Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order for AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) had raised a demand under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on certain payments (service charges and interest). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 153-day delay, refusing to condone it.
Held
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the 153-day delay in filing the appeal before him. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the condonation petition and to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal *in limine* by refusing to condone a 153-day delay without providing sufficient opportunity to explain the cause for delay.
Sections Cited
201, 201(1), 201(1A), 40(a)(ia), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No.
I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075091009(1) dated 27.003.2025 for the A.Y.2020-21 arising out of order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.06.2023.
2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal records that there is a delay of 20 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed on 27.03.2025. As such, the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 31.05.2025. However, the appellant could file the appeal only on 20.06.2025 resulting in a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal.
Sri Chigurupati Appa Rao is the Director and authorized signatory of the appellant company. He suffered from viral hepatitis and was under treatment and bed rest during the period from 15.05.2.025 to 19.06.2025 (medical certificate is enclosed herewith). Therefore, he could not attend to any other affairs during this period and hence the appeal could not be filed. As soon as the condition improved, the appellant took necessary steps and filed the appeal on 20.06.2025.
3. 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
I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 20 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.
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.
Amount of Date of Name of the Creditor / Nature of Payment Payment Payee Payment (In Rs) 31.03.2020 Truetzschler India Pvt Ltd 60,810 Service charges 31.03.2020 NSL Textiles Limited 1,32,75,000 Interest
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
Page. No 3
I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., being the Holding Company of the assessee has reported the interest income in the return of income filed on 29-12-2020 and remitted all the taxes thereon. The Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] has issued notice under section. 201 for non-deduction of TDS based on the information available in the Tax Audit Report. Assessee could not submit response to the notices. Thereafter, Ld. AO after considering all the details available with him on record concluded that the assessee is “assessee-in-default” within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source as per the details listed above thereby framed the assessment by raising a demand of Rs.18,60,202/- including interest.
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: -
Page. No 4
I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
Page. No 5
I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd.,
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: -
“1. The Appeal was filed by the appellant on 04.12.2023 for the AY 2019-20 against the order passed by Income Tax Officer, TDS- Ward-1, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh u/s 201 of I.T Act, 1961 on 03.06.2023 and served on the same day. In this case, there was a delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. The claim of the appellant is that the Appellant has sold the manufacturing unit in FY 2021-22 and all the operations were shut down by FY 2022-23, as there is no staff available during that period, they could not file the appeal on time. As the reason presented by the appellant was not satisfactory, the appellant was asked to furnish all the details/ evidence in support of their claim vide this office notice dated 28.01.2025 but there is no response from the appellant. Therefore, it is presumed that appellant does not have anything to explain in the matter, and that the appellant has no interest in contesting. In view of the same, the appeal is dismissed.”
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,
Page. No 6
I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., the assessee shall be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard during the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08th October, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (रिीश सूद) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (RAVISH SOOD) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:08.10.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., C/o. NSL Textiles Limited Engee House, 3rd Floor, 4th Line Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., C/o. NSL Textiles Limited Engee House, 3rd Floor, 4th Line Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
Page. No 7