BALA ABIRAMI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

All the three appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Shri N. Vijay Kumar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that there was a delay of 43 days in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed application for condonation of delay. We heard the Ld. representative for the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing these appeals before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 43 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals.

Now coming to assessment year 2010-11, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed two appeals against the assessment order as confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) and also penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') as confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). Both the appeals of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) were dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 371 days in filing the appeal in I.T.A.

On the contrary, Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. D.R., submitted that the delay was more than 200 days. The assessee was expected to explain the delay of each and every day. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., mere misplacement of papers in the Chartered Accountant’s office cannot be a reason for condonation of delay. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for condonation.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that there was a delay of 371 days in filing the appeal in and 213 days in filing the appeal in CIT(Appeals). The assessee claimed before the CIT(Appeals) that the papers were handed over to the Chartered Accountant and it was misplaced in the Chartered Accountant’s office. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. The only contention of the Ld. D.R. is that the misplacement of papers in the Chartered Accountant’s office cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee engaged the Chartered Accountant for filing appeals before the CIT(Appeals) and handed over the relevant papers. Misplacement of papers in the Chartered Accountant’s office is beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the delay was not due to the negligence of the assessee. Hence, the appeals have to be disposed on merit.

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that condoning the delay and hearing the appeals on merit may not prejudice the Revenue in any way. The technicalities cannot stand in the way of considering the appeals of the assessee on merit, especially in the income-tax proceedings, there cannot be any tax liability unless it is authorized by law. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the appeals have to be heard on merit. Moreover, there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeals within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 371 days in filing the quantum appeal and 213 days in filing the penalty appeal before the CIT(Appeals) is hereby condoned. Both the orders of the CIT(Appeals) are set aside. Now the appeals of the assessee stand restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall dispose the appeals on merit after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Now, coming to for assessment year 2011-12, Shri N. Vijay Kumar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(Appeals) due to unavoidable circumstance, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. D.R. also. For the assessment year 2010-11, both the quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeal are restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals).

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.