MONISHA NITIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1213/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 September 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The fault of the Authorized Representative should not penalize the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 127 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's Authorized Representative (CA) not handing over the assessment order promptly.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned when the delay was caused by the Authorized Representative.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai in appeal No.147/CIT(A)-2/2015-16 dated 23.03.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

None represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mr.B.Sagadevan, represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld.D.R that the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal by not condoning the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be upheld.

4.

We have considered the submissions of Departmental Representative and perused the materials available on record.

A perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals) shows that the assessee has filed an affidavit before the ld.CIT(A) explaining the delay of 127 days. Though the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that Shri R. Bethala, C.A has represented the assessee before the ld. Assessing Officer and also continued as the assessee’s Auditor, upto and including the date of filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and there is no explanation whatsoever for the time lag of about 4 months, between the date of receipt of the Assessment Order by the said ld.A.R and the actual ‘handing over’ of the same to the assessee, this recording of fact by the ld.CIT(A) clearly shows that there is a delay from the part of the Authorized Representative of assessee in not handing over the Assessment Order in the case of assessee to the assessee. Thus, for the fault of the Authorized Representative of assessee, the assessee should not be penalized. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is condoned and the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 17th September, 2018, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →