VENUS TEXTILES,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KARUR, KARUR

The ld. AR Shri S. Anandh, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay and no adjudication on merits. He prayed to remand the matter to the file of

The ld. DR Shri SBR Kumar Laghimshetti, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 683 days challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty of ₹.5,000/- under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] vide order dated 02.09.2022. The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order with a delay of 683 days before the ld. CIT(A) by giving reasons for the delay, which are reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order. According to the ld. CIT(A), there was no sufficient cause made out by the assessee and taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 to 558, rejected the reasons stated for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons in para 2.3 of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that there was no sufficient cause made out in showing what really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time except lack of awareness.