Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN
आदेश /O R D E R
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Madurai, dated 22.02.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.
Shri B. Sivaraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was a delay of 697 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). According to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) failed to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. According to the Ld.
2 I.T.A. No.1652/Chny/18
counsel, the assessee filed petition under Section 154 of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for rectification on 27.04.2015. According to
the Ld. counsel, the assessment order was passed on 26.03.2015. The
rectification petition filed under Section 154 of the Act was rejected by the
Assessing Officer on 15.05.2015. Admittedly, thereafter the assessee
filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) rejected the
appeal by not condoning the delay of 697 days in filing the appeal before
him. By placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in Supply Chain
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in I.T.A. No.420/Chny/2019 dated
07.06.2019, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical circumstances,
when the assessee was prosecuting remedies under Section 154 of the
Act, this Tribunal found that since the assessee was prosecuting
remedies before other forum, there was a reasonable cause for not filing
appeal before the CIT(Appeals) within the prescribed time. Accordingly,
this Tribunal condoned the delay. In this case also, according to the Ld.
counsel, the facts are identical, therefore, the delay of 697 days may be
condoned and the appeal may be restored on the file of the
CIT(Appeals).
On the contrary, Shri K. Hari Govind, the Ld. Departmental
Representative, submitted that 697 days is a long delay of about two
years. Therefore, the assessee has to explain the reasons for not filing
the appeal within the prescribed time.
3 I.T.A. No.1652/Chny/18
Having heard Shri B. Sivaraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee
and Shri K. Hari Govind, the Ld. D.R., this Tribunal finds that there is a
reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal
before the CIT(Appeals) within the prescribed time. It is not in dispute
that the assessee had filed Miscellaneous Petition under Section 154 of
the Act before the Assessing Officer for rectification. After the petition
filed was rejected by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal
before the CIT(Appeals). In the meantime, there was a delay of 697
days. The very fact that the assessee filed Miscellaneous Petition under
Section 154 of the Act and prosecuting the same before the Assessing
Officer sincerely and diligently shows that the assessee is taking
continuous steps. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion
that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not
filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). On identical circumstances,
this Tribunal in Supply Chain Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra) condoned the
delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the order
of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the delay of 697 days in filing the
appeal before the CIT(Appeals) is hereby condoned. Now the appeal
filed by the assessee stands restored on the file of the CIT(Appeals).
The CIT(Appeals) is directed to dispose the appeal on merit after giving a
reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
4 I.T.A. No.1652/Chny/18
Order pronounced in the court on 18th July, 2019 at Chennai. sd/- (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (N.R.S. Ganesan) �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member
चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 18th July, 2019
Kri.
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A)-2, Madurai 4. Principal CIT-1, Madurai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.