THE DEAN FOUNDATION,KILPAUK vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, TAMIL NADU

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

These two appeals are filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065160845(1) dated 27.05.2024 and DIN & Order No.ITBA/EXM/S/EXM1/2020-21/1031058880(1) dated 26.02.2021 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after & 1913/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:

“CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, and CIT(Exemption ) Chennai respectively for the assessment years 2020-21. As the twin appeals pertains to the same assesse for same assessing year, they are disposed off by this common order. आयकर अपील सं./ Years: 2020-21 2.0 At the outset the Ld. Council for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 27.05.2024 supra has ex- parte confirmed the action of the Ld. AO in imposing a penalty of Rs.31,30,747/- u/s 270A . It was argued that while doing so assesse request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was not favourably considered. The Ld. CIT(A) was reported to have, relied upon the legal maxim of “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt” i.e law aids only those who are vigilant he dismissed assesse’s appeal. The Ld. Council for the assesse urged that it had justified grounds for the delay and that the same was not intentional or with any malafide interests. Request was therefore made that the matter be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after condoning the delay on merits of the case. It was assured that full cooperation would be tendered to the Ld. CIT(A) now . The Ld. CIT DR did not object to assesse pleas. 3.0 We have heard rival submission in the light of material available on records. There is no denying the fact that the appellant has not & 1913/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: responded to the notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Perusal of the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority however also shows that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the facts of the present case and merely applied the judicial maxim of “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt” i.e law aids only those who are vigilant to dismiss the appeal. We have also considered the arguments put forth by the appellant for its inability to comply which its nexus in medical issues of its auditors, as well lack of receipt of timely communications of the department. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We therefore hold the view that ends of justice would be met if the appellant is given one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to re-adjudicate the matter after condoning the delay and giving necessary opportunities to the assesse and pass a speaking order. The assesse shall, inter alia, be placing before the Ld. First Appellate Authority necessary documents to support its case for the delay. Accordingly grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.