Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being filed late by 1633 days. The delay was attributed to the COVID pandemic and an error by the previous accountant. The assessee requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1633 days and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for readjudication de novo, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) can be condoned and if the appeal should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Year: 2017-18 DS Connectors and Cables India Income Tax Officer, Private Limited., Vs. Corpn Ward-2(1), Plot No.2, 4/310 Gandhi Street, Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Salai, OMR, Kottivakkam, Tiruvanmiyur Post, Tiruvanmiyur Chennai-600041. [PAN: AADCD5973F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065245354(1) dated 30.05.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged the order u/s 250 dated 30.05.2024 passed by CIT(A), Guwahati. 2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(1) dated 24/9/2018 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of 1633 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the delay was attributable to covid pandemic as well as mistake of omission by old accountant . Before us through paperbook the assesse has filed affidavits of its employees . The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a detailed paper book. The Ld. DR on the other hand contested the proposal and asked for costs imposition .
3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case.
4.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 1633 days in filing of appeal in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 14th, November , 2024.