SAKTHI HATCHERIES,SIVGANGAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 1, MADURAI, MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 315/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) on merits, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a failure to make any representation. The assessee sought condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, citing disputes between partners.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case after failing to appear before the lower appellate authority, and the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 36(1)(va),Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012- 13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 25-05-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act on 30-12-2017. The registry has noted a delay of 199 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of one of the partners of the assessee-firm. It has been stated that the delay occurred due to disputes between the partners of the firm. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO has made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as another disallowance u/s 36(1)(va). During appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to make any representation and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The same would come at a cost of Rs.2,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned CIT(A) who shall proceed for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal on merits.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →