TARA AUTO FINANACE P LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-3(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2094/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 November 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 362 days. The assessee cited the reason for the delay as difficulty in tracing relevant papers that were mixed up in the auditor's office.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficient to dismiss the appeal, and if the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 25.11.2019Pronounced: 28.11.2019

PAN: AACCT 1837D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate for Shri Ajit Kumbhat,CA ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 25.11.2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai in 19/CIT(A)-11 dated 20.05.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

M/s. Tara Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd., is a finance company. Its assessment U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 20.12.2016,

2 - wherein the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings U/s.271(1)(c). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied penalty U/s.271(1)(c) by an order dated 21.06.2017. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 362 days. The assessee submitted that the delay was due to tracing of relevant papers which got mixed up in the auditor’s office and it took considerable time to trace them. However, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that the plea taken by the assessee is not sufficient to condone the delay. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the fact that the delay was not caused intentionally and deliberately, as the assessee’s appeal papers got mixed up in the auditor’s office, which resulted in the delay in locating them. As soon as the papers were traced, the assessee hurriedly filed the appeal. In the interest of justice, the ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the matter on merits. Therefore, the ld.AR pleaded that the appeal be allowed. Per contra, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A).

3 - 4. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. The assessee filed an appeal against the levy of penalty U/s.271(1)(c) before the CIT(A) with a delay of 362 days. On considering the assessee’s above plea, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the ld.CIT(A) to decide the case on merits.

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 28th November, 2019 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →