SHRI T. KARTHIK PRAKASH,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 8 (5),, CHENNAI

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 70 days in filing the appeals. In support of affidavit, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay in filing the appeals by stating that the assessee himself got injured severely and got fractured and was also advised for total bed rest. Since the assessee filed the petition in support of affidavit and there being no objection from the ld. DR against the submissions of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeals are condoned and taken up for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 14.06.2014 admitting income of ₹.15,37,759/- claiming the loss as business loss. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on 30.03.2016 by making certain disallowances, against which, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

3.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee filed return of income on 26.03.2015 admitting income of ₹.16,39,580/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act on 30.12.2016 by making certain disallowances, against which, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions, and dismissed the appeals on the ground that:

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that with regard to the delay of 67 days for A.Y.2013-14 and 144 days for A.Y.2014-15 in filing these appeals before the ld.CIT(A), the staff, who was attending to the accounts/tax matters, had met with an accident and also the assessee being a chronic diabetes patient and the assessee’s mother was suffering from high blood pressure, which was supported by medical certificate. The ld. AR pleaded that due to these genuine reasons, which were beyond the control of the assessee, he could not file the appeals in time before the ld.CIT(A) with the support of documentary evidence.

Besides this, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised in the appeal on merits and prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to adjudicate the issues on merits by giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee for presenting its case before the first appellate authority.

On the other hand, the ld. DR seriously objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel for assessee and submitted that the assessee has not at all cooperated with the Department, either before the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2014-15 or before the ld. CIT(A) in presenting his case.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the appellate orders in refusing to condone the delay in filing these appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), despite filing supporting evidence, the assessee preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. In both the cases, as pointed out by ld. Authorized Representative of assessee, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeals late. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that except various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay in filing these appeals, the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed anything about the grounds raised or adjudicated the issues on merits. The First Appellate Authority is expected to appreciate the material available on record irrespective of the fact whether the assessee appeared before him or not and record his own findings in the conclusion reached by him. In this case, it is very clear that the ld. CIT(A) has not applied his mind to the material available on record. Thus, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits by affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee as prayed before the Tribunal. In case, if the assessee fails to represent his case before the appellate authority, the assessment orders for both the assessment years stand confirmed.

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes.