CHRYSO,PARIS vs. DCIT CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

We have heard Ms. Shreya Loyalka, and Shri Sanjay Kumar appearing for the assessee and the Revenue respectively and perused materials on record.

The sole grievance of the assessee before us is against ex parte disposal of its appeal, that too in limine by learned Commissioner (Appeals) without deciding it on merits. Facts on record reveal that while processing the return of income filed by the assessee, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) made certain additions/adjustments resulting in enhancement of the returned income.

As it appears, there was delay of 1055 days in filing the appeal before learned first appellate authority against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. Having noticed that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the explanation offered by the assessee seeking condonation of delay is unsatisfactory, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

Before us, the submission of the assessee is two-fold. Firstly, the assessee is a non-resident company, being a tax resident of France, has no presence in India. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the occurrence of COVID-19 in between also aggravated the situation and prevented the assessee from taking appropriate steps within the period of limitation. She submitted, the assessee, being a foreign company, was also not well conversant with the limitation provided under the Act. Thus, she submitted, there was genuine cause in not filing the appeal before the first appellate authority within due date. She submitted, since, the assessee has strong case on merits, its appeal should not be dismissed on technical ground.

Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the first appellate authority.

Having considered rival submissions, we are of the view that there were bona fide reasons, which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before learned first appellate authority within prescribed period of limitation. It is further observed that while dismissing assessee’s appeal in limine, learned first appellate authority has not provided due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decided the appeal ex parte. This, in our view, is in violation of principle of natural justice. In any case of the matter, before us, learned counsel for the assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. On going through the contents and averments in the affidavit, we are convinced that the delay in filing the appeal before learned first appellate authority was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and direct him to decide the appeal on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.