QPAVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Pune dated 14.5.2024 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1064851386(1) as well as order dated 31.5.2024 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065317902(1) for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. Since both the appeals were dismissed by the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) of the same assessee on the ground of not condoning the delay in filing the appeals as well as relying upon judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court n the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Hence, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand, have opposed for the condonation of delay stating to be a habitual but could not controvert the submissions made therein.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, it cannot be said that assessee is very callous in its approach in filing the appeal before us. The affidavit placed before us is reproduced below for ease of reference and record.

Now on going through the order of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) for both these assessment years, we find that the assessee has belatedly filed appeals before the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) by 1283 days for the AY 2018-19 and 386 days for the AY 2019-20 and the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has not condoned the delay as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act in the absence of sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed. The ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) is of the view that on the issue of delay in filing the appeal before him, no reason was given by the assessee. Further, the assessee was given opportunity to file the reason vide issuing notice u/s 250 of the Act. However, the assessee has not responded with respect to substantial delay of about 1283 days and 386 days respectively for the AYs 2018- 19 & 2019-20 and accordingly, in the absence of sufficient cause, the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) declined to condone the delay and held that appeal is non-maintainable being out of time. Further, we find that the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in the interest of natural justice has adjudicated appeal on merit also and by relying in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 Taxamann.com 178 (SC) dated &1685/Bang/2024 QPAVE Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 8 of 9 22.10.2022 has also dismissed the appeal on merits too. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in both the years, the assessee has filed the present appeals before this Tribunal. 5.1 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee could not file any application for condonation of delay and also could not explain the “sufficient cause” for inordinate delay. Before us ld. A.R. of the assessee produced summary of PF statement for the financial years 2017-18 & 2018-19 by showing the details of return month, salary disbursement date, payment date and amount and submitted that all these details could not be filed before the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) and requested to remand back the case to the file of AO for considering the same afresh in accordance with law. Being so, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and fair play, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case and accordingly, we set aside the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld.ADDL/JCIT(A) to decide in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file petition for condonation of delay before the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) for both these years and explain sufficient cause for such inordinate delay and thereafter the ld.ADDL/JCIT(A) will take decision as per law and may consider the case on merits. The assessee is also directed to update the e-mail ID, mobile number etc. on the income tax web portal of the active director and cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) for early disposal. It is ordered accordingly.