SMT. NARASINGAN KUMARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

filing of appeal and had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case.

There was a delay of 204 days in filing the said appeal. In the condonation petition filed by the assessee it was stated that the delay was due to misplacement of the assessment order. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept the condonation petition. According to him, assessee did not specify what was misplaced. Further as per ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee could not file any evidence in support of its plea that the order was misplaced. He, therefore refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

ITA No.2206/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: submitted that the addition for interest was based on a TDS certificate.

According to him the interest amount on which TDS was deducted was never received during the relevant assessment year. As for the addition for credit in the capital account submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the addition of �30,56,921/- was due to an omission of the Accountant. According to him, the Accountant had by mistake clubbed the closing balance in the loan account with the capital account while carrying forward balance of the earlier year to the relevant previous year. According to him, there was substantial merit in the case of the assessee and the appeal ought to have considered in merits and not dismissed on technicality.

Per Contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 5.

assessee unable to show proper reason for delay. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vijayanthabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantharam Baburao Patil and others 253 ITR 798.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that inordinate delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted.

We heard considered the rival contentions and perused the 6. orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, there was a delay of 204 days delay in filing the appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Assessee had mentioned that she had misplaced the order

ITA No.2206/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: from the Department and this was the cause for the delay. Assessee was running a clinical laboratory and not in a large scale business wherein she could have employed skilled persons for her accounting wok. Her turnover was only �15,53,031/- . Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for a reason that assessee did not specify what was misplaced, whether assessment order or demand notice. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also mentions that assessee could not submit evidence for misplacing the assessment order. We are unable to understand what evidence assessee could have brought in support of her contention that order was misplaced. Assessee being a small time business woman, in our opinion ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should not have disbelieved the reasons given by her for the delay. Further, as per the assessee, the addition in cash credit was due to error made by its Accountant through clubbing of bank loan account with capital account. In so far as, addition for interest is concerned, contention of the assessee before us is that interest amount did not pertain to relevant assessment year. When merits of the case and technicalities are pitted against each other, the former should be given more importance and the latter should take a back seat. In our opinion, this was a fit case for condoning the delay. We direct ld. Commissioner of ITA No.2206/Mds/2016 :- 5 -:

Income Tax (Appeals) to condone the delay, admit the appeal and dispose off in accordance with merits of the case. We therefore, set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the appeal back to the file of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for consideration afresh in accordance with law.