NEYVELI UTTAR PRADESH POWER LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 2(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.:
These two appeals are preferred by the assessee against two separate orders, both dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2021-22.
Since identical issues are involved in the above captioned appeals, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.
ITA No.151 & 153/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 5
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its returns of income for both the assessment years under consideration. The CPC processed the returns of income and TDS credits for both the years were denied by the Assessing Officer while passing the orders under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 24.03.2019 for assessment year 2017-18 and 13.11.2022 for assessment year 2021-22.
Aggrieved with the orders of the CPC, the assessee filed its appeals before the ld. First Appellate Authority. The Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Delhi vide its orders dated 24.01.2024 dismissed the appeals on account of the fact that there was delay in filing of the appeals.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Delhi by raising the following common grounds of appeal:
The Order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT (A) ought not to have dismissed the application for condonation at the threshold itself without considering the fact that the Appellant has a bonafide case on merits. That the Ld. Addl JCIT (A) did not consider the fact that the Appellant was under a genuine belief that he is not entitled to the TDS credit, as held by the Ld. CPC 2. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that change in management and the situation surrounding COVID constitutes reasonable cause in specific facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
ITA No.151 & 153/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5
That the Order of the Ld. Addl/ICIT (A) is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing despite the Appellant having sought for the same. 4. That the Order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT (A) is passed without any application of mind and the appeal has been rejected, without considering the merits of the case. Had the Appellant was accorded opportunity to present its case, the present addition would not have occurred.
At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the appeals filed by the assessee were barred by limitation by 265 days for assessment year 2017-18 and by 240 days for assessment year 2021-22. He submitted that the assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, stating therein that the assessee being a Public Sector Undertaking is required to follow a standard procedure for seeking necessary approvals before any appeal is filed and, therefore, the appeals could not be filed within the time stipulated. It was prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeals was not deliberate and was beyond the control of the assessee and, therefore, the same may be condoned and the appeals be heard on merits.
Per contra, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to the condonation of delay.
We have duly considered the issue of condonation of delay and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and specially noting that the bona fide of the assessee in this
ITA No.151 & 153/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 5
regard is beyond doubt, we condone the delay and admit both the appeals for the purpose of regular hearing.
The ld. AR submitted that the Addl/JCIT(A) had rejected the Petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee and had dismissed the appeals of the assessee without going into the merits of the appeals. The ld. AR prayed that the assessee’s appeals may be restored to the file of the Addl/JCIT(A) for the purpose of adjudication on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeals.
The ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the Addl/JCIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of these cases, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its cases and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore these files to the Office of the Addl/JCIT(A) with the direction to condone the delay of in filing the appeals before the Addl/JCIT(A) and decide the appeals of the assessee on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its cases. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Addl/JCIT(A) in the set- aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the
ITA No.151 & 153/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 5
Addl/JCIT(A) shall be at complete liberty to pass the orders in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if they are ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/09/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED:30/09/2024 JJ:
