FIDELIS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3391/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 April 2018AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee should not suffer for the fault of its authorized representative. It also held that the CIT(A) should dispose of the appeal on merits, not ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution due to a delay of 109 days. The delay was attributed to the authorized representative being out of town on an official tour.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without considering it on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

Assessee in this appeal which is directed against an order dated 21.06.2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed its appeal for want of prosecution.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 109 days. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was received by the ld. Authorised Representative who went out of town on official tour. According to him, said representative could not handover the order and documents to its Auditor. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the representative returned only after three months and immediately thereafter the appeal was filed.

Thus, according to him, there was a reasonable cause for condoning the delay.

3.

Strongly opposing the petition, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Further, according to him, assessee despite number of opportunities given to it had never entered appearance before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As per the ld. Departmental Representative the law should only help diligent assessee’s and not those who knowingly ignore their lawful duties.

4.

We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions.

In our opinion, for the delay which was due to the fault of the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee could not be put in peril. That apart, we find the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had disposed the appeal ex-parte for a reason that assessee was not interest in prosecuting the appeal filed before the ld.CIT(A). In our opinion, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has to dispose of the appeal on merits irrespective of whether assessee appears before him or not. In the facts and circumstances, we condone the delay, admit the appeal and send it back to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for consideration afresh in accordance with law.

5.

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

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 5th day of April, 2018, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →