M/S. TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Disputes Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore (‘DRP’ for short) dated 05.03.2016, contesting its assessment u/s. 143(3) r/w s.144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for assessment year (AY) 2012-13.

The only issue in this appeal, is if the ld. DRP ought to have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, condoned the three day delay in filing the objections by the assessee – which are to be within 30 days of the communication of the draft order to it, before the DRP. The ld. DRP has 2 (AY 2012-13) Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT declined to condone the delay on the ground of want of power for the same under the Income Tax (Disputes Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009, which govern its functioning, including procedure to be followed by it.

Before us the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) would submit that the minor delay of three days occurred on account of the wrong noting of the date by the counsel, and is not reflective of any lack of earnestness on the part of the assessee in filing the objections. Reliance was placed by him on the decision by the Tribunal in Tenova India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (in dated 05.06.2017), placing a copy of the same on record. The tribunal therein, on being satisfied with the reasons for the delay, which was again for three days, condoned the same and restored the matter back to the file of the DRP for adjudicating the assessee’s application on merits. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would respond by stating that the reason for the delay is not supported by an affidavit by either the assessee or its counsel.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. No doubt the reason should have been stated preferably per a sworn affidavit or at least in writing under signature. So, however, we are wont to give equal credence to the statement at bar by the ld. AR. The delay is for a small period and could have occurred on account of some misunderstanding. It, in fact, confirms the earnestness on the part of the assessee to participate in the proceedings before the DRP. Under the circumstances, we are, in the interest of justice, inclined to condone the same. The matter is accordingly restored back to the file of the ld. DRP, setting aside its earlier order, for deciding the assessee’s objections on merits upon allowing due opportunity for representation. We decide accordingly, also drawing support from the order in Tenova India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Under the circumstances, we do not consider it necessary and

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on June 29, 2017 at Chennai.