CHANDRASEKARA RAJU DAMBEEKA RAJU,TIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

The only issue in this appeal before us is that ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the adjustment of Rs.11,20,137/- being the claim of deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act No.10DA within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act in the rectification order passed u/s.154 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justifications.

The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and stated the facts that u/s.154 of the Act was issued by the ADIT, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru on 06.04.2023. But the appeal was filed before CIT(A) on 06.07.2023 thereby there is a delay of 60 days. The ld. AR submitted that the Manager Accounts who was entrusted filing of appeal went on leave on medical grounds, hence there was delay in filing the appeal. In term of the above, the ld.AR stated that this is a reasonable cause and delay is also for 60 days, hence prayed to condone the delay and remit the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. In reply, the ld.Addl. CIT-DR stated that the cause deliberated by the ld.AR does not seem to be supported by any evidence and also it is a make believe story and hence, it should not be accepted.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the fact that the delay is of 60 days and the assessee claims that the Manager Accounts, who was entrusted in filing of appeal went on leave on account of medical exigency.

We are of the considered view that going through the reasons for delay of 60 days and to meet the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay before the CIT(A)-NFAC and the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC is set aside and matter is remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.