Y-201 THICKANAMCODE PACCS LTD.,KANYAKUMARI vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAGERCOIL

ITA 1584/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 September 2024AY 2020-214 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 condoned the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), opining that the assessee should not be penalized for the omission of their Authorized Representative. The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) had not passed the order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by failing to adjudicate the delay and the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance with law after hearing the assessee. The assessee's AR undertook to diligently file written submissions and relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Y 201, Thickanamcode PACCS Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 03.03.2024, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was filed belatedly with a delay of 22 days. The Tribunal noted that this was a duplicate filing, as a similar appeal had already been filed. The assessee's representative brought to the Tribunal's notice that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without condoning a delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before him. The reason for the delay was attributed to the assessee's Authorized Representative misplacing the file.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the circumstances presented by the assessee. 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without adjudicating the delay and the grounds of appeal on merits. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was due to the Authorized Representative misplacing the assessment order and related documents, leading to the delay. The assessee contended that they should not be penalized for the omission of their AR. The assessee also pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without condoning the delay. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the delay or the ex parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEYAND

For Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 03.03.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2020-21.

At the outset, it is noted that this appeal has been filed before Tribunal belatedly and there is a delay of ‘22’ days. However, it has been brought to our notice that the assessee had filed the appeal within the limitation period through virtual mode (e-filing) and has also filed the hard copy of the same, which has been again numbered and posted for preferred against the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) (e-filing) has been numbered as ITA No.1309/Chny/2024. Therefore, this is duplicate filing of the same appeal and thus there is error in stating that there is delay of ‘22’ days in filing of this instant Appeal. We find that there is a duplicity in filing of the appeal against the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 03.03.2024 and since, the assessee has undertaken to withdraw the appeal being listed on 24.07.2024, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

At the outset, the Ld.AR pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before him i.e., the Ld.CIT(A). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of ‘180’ days in filing of the appeal before him i.e. the Ld.CIT(A). It was brought to our notice that the assessee had filed condonation application before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein, the assessee has sated the reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein it was stated that the assessee had entrusted the assessment order and the related documents for AY 2020-21 to an Authorized Representative, who failed to file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) since it [the file] got misplaced and which led to the delay in filing of the appeal. In such a scenario, we are of the opinion that the assessee shouldn’t be penalized for the omission on the part of the Ld.AR, who ought to have been careful while accepting the papers for filing the appeal on time. In any event, after going through the records and for the ends of justice and fair play, we condone the delay of ‘180’ days in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and since, the Ld.CIT(A) has not passed the order as per provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. Before us, the Ld.AR undertakes to diligently file written submissions along with relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised before him. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

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

Order pronounced on the 18th day of September, 2024, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →