BULLOCK CART WORKERS DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,VILLUPURAM V. .DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

ITA 2678/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Bullock Cart Workers Development Association, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A) which had dismissed their appeal in limine due to a significant delay of 787 days in filing. The appellant argued that the delay was partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and disruptions caused by it, which affected their operations and staff availability. The ITAT noted the procedural lapses and non-responsiveness of the assessee to multiple notices from the CIT(A) but, in the interest of justice, provided an opportunity for the assessee to present their case again, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to be shown for the delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36175 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022] 441 ITR 722
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J. SARAVANAN
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ,चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी जगदȣश, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2678/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2017-18 M/s. Bullock Cart Workers Development Association, 858, East Pondy Road, Villupuram – 605 602. PAN: AAAAB 1650N Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮकᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 21.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. - 2 - ITA No.2678/CHNY/2024 2. At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) in-limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him (delay of 787 days in filing the appeal). The CIT(A) also noted in spite of five notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority to file evidence / submissions, the assessee had not responded to the same. 3. The ld.AR submitted that assessee had not submitted an affidavit or a condonation application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). It was stated by ld.AR, however in Column No.15 of Form 35, the reasons for belated filing of appeal before the CIT(A) has been mentioned. It was submitted by the ld.AR that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 22.01.2020 but due to the Covid period, the appeal was filed only on 17.02.2022. It was submitted that after excluding the Covid period for calculating the limitation for filing of appeal as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in[2022] 441 ITR 722, the delay is only 52 days in filing the appeal. It was submitted that prior to the period of 15.03.2020, the staff of the assessee society was regularly on leave and consequently, the appeal could not be filed within the due date prescribed. The ld.AR further submitted that - 3 - ITA No.2678/CHNY/2024 the notices from the office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was communicated to one of the staff of the assessee’s authorized representative and the same was not taken note. It was prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). 4. The ld.DR was duly heard. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The office of the CIT(A) had issued five notices to the assessee to furnish the submissions along with the supporting documentary evidence. However, there is no response on the side of the assessee to the aforementioned notices. The assessee claims that notices sent from the office of the First Appellate Authority was issued to the e-mail ID of the assessee’s representative before the FAA and the same was not brought to the notice of the assessee. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(A) / FAA. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly, we restore the matter to the files of the CIT(A). Before - 4 - ITA No.2678/CHNY/2024 the CIT(A), there is a delay of 787 days, after excluding the period of lock-down due to Covid period, the delay in filing the appeal is around 52 days. The assessee shall furnish relevant documentary evidence in support of its claim that there is sufficient cause / reasons for belated filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. If the CIT(A) is satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal, needless to state, the CIT(A) shall decide the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदȣश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 18th December, 2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "