VIJAYALAKSHMI AND CO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-12(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 340/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principle of natural justice. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order where the Assessing Officer estimated business income at 8% due to a lack of substantive submissions. The CIT(A) confirmed this assessment. The assessee also faced a significant delay in filing the appeal, citing non-receipt of the impugned order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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) 2017- 18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 18-08-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Act on 25-12-2019. The registry has noted delay of 477 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR by way of condonation petition. It has been stated that the assessee did not receive any email or post communicating the impugned order. On 27-01-2024, the assessee received a letter containing details of outstanding demands and the assessee immediately sought the advice of CA. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred with a delay. It has further been stated that the delay was not deliberate bur due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, considering the aforesaid factual position, the delay is condoned and we proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. The Ld. AR has sought another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO estimated business income @8% and assessed the income at Rs.12.60 Lacs since the assessee failed to make any substantive submissions. The position remained the same during appellate proceedings and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed. 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. Accordingly, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and the matter is restored back to Ld. AO to frame de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to frame assessment on the basis of material on record. A reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →