M.S.BALAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(5), CHENNAI

It was the submissions of the ld. Counsel that against the assessment order under section 144 of the Act, the assessee filed belated appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by assigning various reasons. It was further submissions, against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) and under section 271B of the Act, the assessee filed belated appeals before the ld. CIT(A). In the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it was the submission before the ld. CIT(A) that due to torrential rain during the month of November and December, 2015, the business premises of the assessee was surrounded by flood and damaged lot and could not carry out any activity for the said two months. It was further submission that while rearranging the business place, the assessee misplaced various materials including income tax papers and could not trace out instantly the assessment order including penalty orders against which the assessee could file the appeals. It was the submission that the assessee tried several time to get duplicate copy of the order from the Assessing Officer, but, could not get it. When the assessee could finally traced out the income tax papers, he preferred the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) with delay in filing the appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. It was the submissions of the ld. Counsel that the neither the ld. CIT(A) condoned delay in filing the appeal on

We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The ld. CIT(A) has admitted in his order at para 6.4 that the rains affected the normal life in Chennai from 01.12.2015 to 19.12.2015 and there was inundation in many areas of Chennai and relief operations were largely carried out in the rain affected areas. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is genuine and reasonable cause for non-filing of the appeals within the time stipulated under the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not condone the delay in filing the appeals and moreover, the ld. CIT(A) obtained remand report from the Assessing Officer against quantum, but he has not adjudicated the issues on merits. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal against quantum as well as appeals filed against levy of penalty deserves condonation and accordingly, we condone the delay filing the appeals. Until quantum additions attain its finality, the levy of penalty cannot be adjudicated. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits after verification of books and relevant

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