MANOHARAMMA HOTEL INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORP WARD 4(1), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 47 days. Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of the condonation petition filed by the assessee, we note that the assessee made out a case in 2 explaining the reasons for the delay, which really prevented the assessee in not filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 47 days is condoned.

The only issue emanates for our consideration is that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer exparte of the assessee.

At the outset, we note that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], inter alia, making addition on account of share profit. On examination of the impugned order, we note that the assessee could not substantiate the grounds raised in Form 35 and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the views of the Assessing Officer by placing reliance in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT (223 ITR 480) without discussing merits of the case.

The ld. AR Shri R. Harshavardan, Advocate pleaded for remand of the case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and undertook that the assessee is ready to prosecute the appeal without fail. The ld. DR Shri G. Suresh, JCIT objected the same. As discussed above, on perusal of the impugned order that there was no opportunity for the assessee as is evident from 3 para 4 of the impugned order, wherein, the ld. CIT(A) reproduced the details of hearing/opportunities given to the assessee. Since there was no opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its claim made through grounds in Form 35 and in view of the submissions of the ld. AR and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- towards cost in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Since the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the Stay Application in S.A. No. 31/Chny/2024 stands closed.