DECCAN DESIGNS INDIA (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, considering the financial constraints of the assessee. The matter was directed to be decided on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 166 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limini without condoning the delay. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in textile manufacturing.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal in limini due to the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250(6),Section 2(22)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, dated 06.10.2017 in for the assessment year 2006-07 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) & 147 of the Act.
The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the assessee is aggrieved by Ld.CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal in limini by not condoning the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before him.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of textiles, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006- 07 on 05.02.2008 declaring loss of Rs.2,02,87,894/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 05.03.2008. Subsequently the case was reopened U/s.147 of the Act and notice U/s.148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2013. Finally assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.11.2013 wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.2,40,57,599/- invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. When the matter cropped up before the Ld.CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed in limini since it was filed with a delay of 166 days before him.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period provided under the Act, due to the fault of the assessee’s counsel and therefore it was pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) may be condoned. He further submitted that the assessee company is already facing financial constraint due to the heavy loss incurred by it and the additions made by the Revenue which is devoid of merits will bring irreparable loss to the assessee. Hence it was pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) may be condoned and the appeal may be directed to be heard on merits. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Though we do not appreciate the arguments advanced by the Ld.AR, considering the financial constraints of the assessee, in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with merit and law after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We also direct the Ld.AR / assessee to promptly cooperate before the Ld.CIT(A) in his proceedings failing which the Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials on record.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced on the 22nd May, 2018 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026