KANTHASAMY SHOPPING COMPLEX,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai, for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2018-19, dated 31.08.2023.

:-2-: ITA. Nos: 1183& 1184/Chny/2023 rental income after deduction of municipal taxes and 30% claim u/s. 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) at Rs.21,60,535/- and Rs.24,81,433/-, respectively. This amount has been divided among all four partners and chargeable to tax under their individual capacity. The return has been processed by CPC, Bangalore by issuing intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 17.03.2018 and 16.05.2019 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19, demanding tax payable at Rs.11,74,080/- and Rs.5,50,826/-, respectively. The intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was sent to assessee’s e-mail ID, which was provided by appellant for communication in e- filing profile. However, for assessment year 2016-17 the assessee filed Form 35 only on 23.02.2022, with a delay of 1439 days, and for assessment year 2018-19, the assessee filed Form 35 on 22.02.2022, with a delay of 1013 days, explaining reasons that the notices which were received in assessee’s old e-mail ID is not in use. Hence, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings and also due to COVID, there were limited resources, so the assessee could not file the appeals within the time prescribed under law and requested to condone the delay.

:-3-: ITA. Nos: 1183& 1184/Chny/2023 3. The ld. CIT(A), was not satisfied with the reasons given for condoning the delay. The ld. CIT(A) also relied upon various case laws as under: (i) Balwant Singh vs Jagadish Singh, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (ii) P.K. Ramchandran vs State of Kerala and anr [1997] 7 SSC 556 (SC) (iii) Basavaraj and an vs Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013] 14 SSC 81 (SC)

And held that delay must be condoned only when it is established that the assessee has taken all possible measures to file appeal in time and yet failed. But, when a party has acted with negligence there cannot be any justified ground for condoning delay. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before us.

:-4-: ITA. Nos: 1183& 1184/Chny/2023 assessee firm is running a Shopping Complex and due to non- response for intimation of CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the assessee and hence, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine. The plea of the assessee was that the non- appearance/participation was not deliberate and the ld. AR undertakes to appear before the authorities, provided an opportunity is given. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee, in our considered view, the matter needs to go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. But, the assessee will get another opportunity before the first appellate authority, subject to payment of nominal cost of Rs.5,000/- for each assessment year for failure to attend/respond to the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act.

:-5-: ITA. Nos: 1183& 1184/Chny/2023 and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.