M/S. ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS(P) LTD, ROURKELA vs. ASST.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATANAM

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member :

Thereafter, the assessee received separate hearing notices for all the four appeals intimating the date of hearing as 22/01/2019.

With respect to hearing notices, the assessee’s Representative (Auditor) has filed letters on 22/01/2019 and sought for adjournment of hearing of the appeals as he would be out of 3 station on the given dates of hearing. Thereafter, the assessee did not receive any notices of hearing and the assessee was under the bonafide belief that hearing notices would be sent to the assessee considering the request of the assessee’s Representative. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad vide common order dated 14/05/2019 dismissed the appeals for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2013-14 and vide separate order dated 25/02/2019 allowed the appeal for the AY 2014-15 on the basis of the information available on record. It was further submitted that, in the appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the hearing notices could not be served on the assessee. In fact, the assessee was not aware of the above orders of the Ld. CIT (A) as the orders were not sent by post but were issued to the e-mail account of the assessee. However, the assessee did not notice the orders lying in the email at the relevant point of time because the assessee closed its unit in Visakhapatnam on the ground that the business was not running well and therefore shifted its unit premises to Rourkela in Odisha State as well as the Directors were also shifted to Rourkela. Because of the shifting of the premises from Visakhapatnam to Rourkela, the orders went unnoticed. Otherwise, there is no deliberate intention to file the appeals beyond the prescribed time limit.

4 Further, due to COVID pandemic situation and considering the restrictions prevailed at that point of time, the assessee could not follow up the status of the appeals. It was came to know only when Sri G S Narayan, one of the Directors, received a phone call from the Department during the last week of December, 2021 regarding the tax arrears as the appeals filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority were dismissed. Then, the Director immediately took all possible steps required to file the appeals before the Tribunal. But, due to shifting of the office premises, the relevant paper could not be traced out and since some of the relevant office staff at Visakhapatnam unit were resigned and the assessee hardly get any help from them. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the above explained all the factors culminated into a delay of 1077 days in filing the appeals beyond the prescribed time limit. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that there is no willful negligence or latches on the part of the assessee. The delay has occurred only due to lack of knowledge of passing of the ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore he pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the matters may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeals on merits.

5 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that there is a huge delay of 1077 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has not properly explained the delay and therefore pleaded that the delay should not be condoned.

Pronounced in the open Court on 28th February, 2024.