Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai, in dated 30.03.2016 for the AY 2010-11.
Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and ‘none’ represented on behalf of the assessee.
ITA No.1781/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:
It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the appeal of the assessee had been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) on account of the delay of 267 days in filing of the appeal. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be confirmed.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that the assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing of the appeal which was caused by her Authorized Representative by not informing her regarding the receipt of the Penalty Order.
Admittedly, on the fault of the Authorized Representative, the assessee should not put to hardship. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. It is further noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits. In these circumstances, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on October 23, 2017, at Chennai.