EMPRESS ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

ITA No.266/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:

3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the reasonable cause shown by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant could have derived no benefit by filing the appeal belatedly and that the same could not have been the intent of the appellant.

2.0 All the grounds of the appeal are related to the dismissal of appeal by the Ld.CIT(A) without condoning the delay.

3.0 The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.87,177/- on 24.09.2012. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) by making addition of Rs.78,15,000/- relating to consultancy charges u/s.37(1) of IT Act.

4.0 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed the appeal with delay of 139 days, along with the appeal Memo, the assessee also filed a prayer for condonation of delay on a plain paper and not on Affidavit.

5.0 In the petition for condonation of delay, the assessee has submitted the following reasons:

“2. The Managing Director who was authorized to sign the appeal papers was ill and subsequently was travelling on business tours and hence have accordingly authorized a signatory for signing the same where by the appeal is filed.

ITA No.266/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:

6.0 The Ld.CIT(A), not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay.

7.0 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is on appeal before this Tribunal.

Appearing for the assessee, the Ld.AR stating that the appeal could not filed before the due date because of the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee was ill and travelling on business tours and could not file the appeal within the prescribed time period. The Ld.AR submitted that in the assessment made u/s.143(3), heavy additions were made involving substantial questions of law and on facts. The assessee further stated that the assessee having bright chances for succeeding in appeal. The assessee would be put to unnecessary hardship of financial injury if the appeal is not decided on merits. Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded for condonation of delay and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. On the other hand, the Ld.DR did not make any objections for remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

8.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us.

In the assessment, huge addition was made u/s.37(1) for a sum of Rs.78,15,000/- relating to consultancy charges. The assessee also raised

ITA No.266/Mds/2017 :- 4 -: grounds for not allowing the depreciation loss of Rs.1,61,465/- relating to brought forward depreciation loss. The Ld.AR argued that in case the appeal is allowed to be dismissed on technical grounds, the assessee will face serious financial hardship and financial loss. We do not have any doubt that it is the obligation on the part of the assessee to make arrangement or filing appeal before the due date. However, considering the issues involved and the fact that the assessee has suffered illness in the interest of justice we hold that delay in this case needs to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 139 days and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th June, 2017, at Chennai.