SHRI D. MOORTHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2967/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 February 2017AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay, considering the need to trace the assessment order and locate parties for substantiating claims. The delay was condoned to promote the cause of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessees filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 188 days. They claimed the delay was due to misplacing the assessment order and difficulty in locating loan creditors and co-promoters.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Hearing: 10.01.2017Pronounced: 23.02.2017

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2967/Mds/2016
ITA No. 2968/Mds/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals of the two independent assessees are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai dated 18.08.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing off the same by this common order.

2.

Shri D. Anand, the Ld. counsel for the assessees submitted that there was a delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). According to the Ld. counsel, the assessees misplaced the order of CIT (Appeals). Therefore, there was delay in filing the appeals. Moreover, the assessees were also engaged in searching the address of the loan creditors and co-promoters. The assessees could not find out the whereabouts of the loan creditors and co-promoters. Even the Assessing Officer informed the assessees that the letter sent to the loan creditors and co-promoters were returned back with an endorsement ‘No such person or door-lock’. In view of this, the assessees could not file the appeals immediately before the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, there was a delay of 188 days in filing both the appeals before the CIT (Appeals).

According to the Ld. counsel, , the assessees could not file the appeal since the orders were misplaced. Moreover to substantiate the claim of the assessees on merit, the loan creditors and co-promoters needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the delay was beyond the control of the assessees.

3.

On the contrary, Shri A. V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessees have to file the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) within 30 days from the date of service of the assessment orders. 188 days delay in filing the appeals are not a small matter. Merely because, the assessees could not locate the loan creditors and co-promoters, cannot be reason for not filing the appeals.

The assessees were assisted by the chartered accountant. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) rightly found that there was no sufficient case on the part of the assessees in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that there was a delay of 188 days in filing the appeals before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) found that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessees. When the assessees claims that the order was misplaced and the assessees has to locate the address of the loan creditors and co- promotors, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessees in not filing the appeals before CIT (Appeals) within the period of limitation. For the purpose of filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee has to file a copy of the assessment orders along with grounds of appeal. Since, the assessee claims that the assessment order was misplaced, he could not have file the appeal unless the assessment order was traced out.

Moreover for the purpose of substantiating the claim of credit, the assessee has to file the confirmation letter from the respective loan creditors and co-promoters. If necessary, the loan creditors and the co- promoters also need to be examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that locating the address of the loan creditors and co-promoters may not be necessary for filing the appeal.

5.

In this factual situation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) before the period of limitation.

Moreover, giving one more opportunity to the assessee to argue the case on merit before the CIT (Appeals) may not prejudice the interest of Revenue in any way. Giving one more opportunity would definitely promote the cause of justice. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Revenue cannot retain single pie of the tax payer, unless it is authorized by law. Taking into consideration of all the factual aspect and the legal position, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay. Accordingly, the order of the lower authority is set aside and the delay of 188 days in filing both the appeals is condoned. Now both the appeals of the assessees stand restored on the file of the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) is directed to dispose the files on merit after giving reasonable opportunities to the assessees.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees stands allowed.

Order pronounced on 23rd February, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →