INSOFT.COM PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, dated 10.03.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of development and export of computer software and filed its return of income on 05.10.2010 admitting income of ₹.55,58,915/-. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by assessing taxable income after rejecting the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of ₹.20,00,000/-.

Against the penalty order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by rejecting the condonation petition filed for the delay of 145 days on the ground that the assessee could not file any tour detail of one of the Directors of the assessee firm/evidence .

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and by filing copy of the medical certificate as well as tour details within India and overseas tour of the director of the assessee firm/evidence, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and pleaded for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and its admission for adjudication. On the other hand, the ld. DR dutifully supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee has filed the 3 overseas tour as well as tour within India details of Shri George Baekelman, one of directors of the assessee company. Further, the assessee has filed medical certificate from KL Multi Speciality Hospital, Neelangarai, Chennai, wherein it was notified that Shri Natarajan has been expired on 29.12.2014, who has been under treatment from 23.08.2014 to 29.12.2014, who is father of one of the directors of the assessee company. By filing the above details, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed its admission of its appeal for adjudication. We find force in the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and of the opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits.