SUNDARAM THEATRE A/C,MADURAI vs. ACIT NCC 3, MADURAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication after condoning the delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 10 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The assessee cited the death of a partner and personal work in Malaysia as reasons for the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay. Whether the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062694741(1) dated 15.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2003- 04. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 15.03.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 It is noted that there is a delay of ‘10’ days in filing of this appeal, for which, assesse has filed Condonation petition. Having perused the same, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for delay. So, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
3.0 At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assesse pointed out that through the impugned order the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse by not accepting its request for condonation.
According to the Ld.AR, the assesse had genuine grounds which prevented the assesse from filing the appeal in time. Therefore, he pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly requested that the matter be set aside to CIT(A) for adjudication of its appeal after condoning the delay.
4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assesse.
5.0 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assesse’s appeal by not acceding to request for condonation for delay.
According to the assesse, his other partner had expired and also that the assesse had gone to Malasia for some personal work which contributed to the delay in filing of appeal.
Be that as it may, it should be borne in mind that if an assesse is aggrieved by the Assessment Order, he has statutory right of appeal before the First Appellate Authority and such a right would be futile, if the First Appellate Authority doesn’t give proper opportunity of hearing to the assesse. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assesse, and therefore, set-aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file for adjudication after condoning the delay, and the assesse is directed to file written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate the grounds of appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assesse.
6.0 In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31st July, 2024 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
