GRACE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD,PUDUCHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, बी, �यायपीठ,चे�नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी मनु कुमार �ग�र, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 981/CHNY/2024 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Grace Infrastructure Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of A-5, Industrial Estate, Vs. Income Tax, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry 605 009. Pondicherry. PAN: AACCG 1992N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Smt. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062466025 (1) dated 12.03.2024. The assessment was framed by the DCIT, Pondicherry, Circle, Pondicherry Chennai for the assessment year 2013-14 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 31.03.2016.
- 2 - ITA No.981/Chny/2024.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in manufacturing industrial fasteners and also deriving income from sale of wind energy from windmills. Assessee had filed return of income electronically on 30.11.2013 admitting a total income of Rs.26,00,825/- under normal provisions and book profit of Rs.9,65,87,070/- u/s.115JB of the Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Act raising net demand of Rs.2,32,56,870/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of Seventy Six days (76 days) and the ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no delay in filing the appeal, since assessee has already filed the appeal manually as per the time period prescribed by the Act. Later, CIT(A) has sent a letter, instructed the assessee to file the appeal online vide letter N.CIT(A)-PDY/e- filing/2016-17 dated 17.08.2016. The letter dated 20.01.2024 filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) narrates the entire facts relating to filing of appeal. On the other hand, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative pleaded for dismissing the appeal since it was time barred.
We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record. We find substance in the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find that the appeal was filed in time before the ld. CIT(A) manually. This fact
- 3 - ITA No.981/Chny/2024. was explicitly informed by the appellant vide letter dated 20.01.2024 to ld.CIT(A) narrating all such facts but the same was referred but not considered by the ld. CIT(A) in justifiable way. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2024 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- एस.आर. रघुनाथा (मनु कुमार �ग�र) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the28th June, 2024 KV आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु� /CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.
