What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) based on a case involving the Revenue was unsustainable and restored the issues for re-adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeals were delayed by 770 days due to the company closing operations and the director's personal distress. The lower appellate authority had decided the case ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte decision of the lower appellate authority was justified.

Regaliaa Realty Limited… vs DCIT | ITAT Chennai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 27.08.2019Pronounced: 27.08.2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:

These four appeals filed by the assessee against the common Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, in 70 & 71/2014-15 & 134/15-16/CIT(A)-3, dated 28.02.2017 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2010-11, 2009-10 & 2012-13 respectively. to 1797/Chny/2019 :- 2 -:

None represented on behalf of the assessee and Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue.

The appeals are delayed by 770 days. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay. It is the submission that the assessee-company had closed down its operations and all employees had left the job on account of financial crisis. Further the Director’s spouse had also expired and he was in a distressed state of mind. It was a submission that was also the reason why no one had appeared on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and the affidavit filed by the Director.

The assessee has sought an adjournment. As it is noticed that appeal relates an exparte decision by the ld. CIT(A), the adjournments sought by the assessee is rejected. Shri A.Kurian Joseph, Advocate was requested to assist the Court. The ld. counsel submitted that an affidavit for condonation of delay having been filed and the reasons as mentioned in the affidavit having not been found or proved to be false, the same is liable to be accepted and the delay condoned in respect of the filing of the appeal. It was his further submission that the exparte decision by the ld. CIT(A) by to 1797/Chny/2019 :- 3 -:

applying Multiplan India (P.)Ltd. was unsustainable in so far as in the case of Multiplan India (P.)Ltd, it was appeal of the Revenue, which was dismissed, as the Revenue was unable to serve notice on the assessee in their appeal. It was a submission that the issues in the appeal was liable to be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merits.

In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions.

Considering the fact that the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee-company explaining the reasons for the delay having not been found to be false, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeals disposed off on merits. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has applied the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. for the purpose of the exparte dismissal of the assessee’s appeal before him. It is admittedly noticed that the decision in the case of Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. was a decision against the Revenue on account of non serving of the notice on the assessee in Revenue’s appeal. This principle admittedly cannot be applied in the case of an appeal filed by an assessee. This being so, considering the fact that the ld. to 1797/Chny/2019 :- 4 -:

CIT(A) had granted the assessee substantial opportunities as has been brought out in Page 1 at Para 2 of his order and considering the fact that there has been non-representation on the part of the assessee, in the interest of natural justice, the issues of these appeals restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits subject to the assessee paying cost of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal to the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund and production of the copy of the said receipt before ld. CIT(A) on the date of the hearing, to be intimated by the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on the 27th day of August, 2019, in Chennai.

REGALIAA REALTY LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments