GEORGE MAIJO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-2(3), CHENNAI

The assessee is a company and filed the return of income for AY 2017- 18 on 15.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,69,46,390/- The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessing officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) assessing the income at Rs.7,16,07,181 after making

1. :- 2 -: addition/disallowance of Rs.3,75,13,000 u/s.68 of the Act and receivables to the tune of Rs.71,47,791/-. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC of the Act. Since, the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice as well as further notices issued, the AO passed the penalty order levying penalty of Rs.22,50,780/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

There is a delay of the 92 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee filed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee does not have any technical knowledge to access computers and therefore is completely dependent on counsel with regard to income tax matters. The Ld. AR further submitted the counsel of the assessee did not handle assessee's case properly and hence the assessee was kept in dark regarding the penalty as well as the appellate proceedings. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has filed an appeal against the quantum addition made by the AO before the CIT(A) and the same is pending for adjudication. Accordingly the Ld. A.R prayed that the penalty appeal may be :- 3 -:

sent back to the CIT(A) to be considered along with the quantum appeal. Considering the fact that the assessee did not represent the case properly before the lower authorities and that the quantum appeal being pending before the CIT(A), we deem it fit to remit the present appeal back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the present appeal based on his decision in the quantum appeal in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.4,000/- (Four Thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the CIT(A).

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