Grenature Bio Tech Private Limited, Chennai V. Income Tax Officer,Corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai

ITA 15/CHNY/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1378 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 144; 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी महावीर ͧसंह, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी ͬगरȣश अĒवाल, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 15/CHNY/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Grenature Bio Tech Private Limited, K. Shanmugam, No. 71, Ground Floor, Appar Street, Thiruvalleswarar Nagar, Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. PAN: AAFCG-8689-P v. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward -2(2), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : None ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 25.05.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai in ITA No. 10364/CIT(A)-6/2019-20 dated 21.09.2020 against the order of ITO, Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) dated 31.08.2019. 2 M/s. Grenature Bio Tech Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 15/Chny/2021 AY: 2017-18 2. The grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are reproduced as under: 1. “ For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case were dismissed due to time limit. 2. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards total credit in our bank accounts of the company wrongly taken sum of Rs.7O,59,797/- .actual credit sum of Rs.44,41,544/ 4. For that the Income tax officer has stated that in assessment order under section 144 of the income tax act total bank receipts of the company sum of Rs. 48,59,797/- excluding cash deposited in demonetization period sum of Rs.22,00,000/- but actual Bank total receipts was sum of Rs.44,41,544/- Including cash deposited in demonetization period sum of Rs.22,00,000/-. 5. For that the Income tax officer has passed order best judgment under section 144 without giving opportunity being here'd that to consider as total bank credit amount was undisclosed income but in ground reality does not have any income for the year and the appellant not filed Return of Income for this year due to management dispute related to heavy loss and no business order further 6. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. From the grounds above, ground no. 1, 2 & 5 related to violation of the principles of natural justice and dismissal of appeal by the ld. CIT(A) on technical ground of limitation as well as best judgment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 4. From the perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we note that there was a delay of 112 days in filing the appeal by the assesse before the Ld. CIT(A). The observations and findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal on the technical ground that the 3 M/s. Grenature Bio Tech Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 15/Chny/2021 AY: 2017-18 assessee failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal which are reproduced as under: “ Belated Appeal 5.1 At the outset, it is to bring on record that the appeal was filed by the appellant belatedly on 20.03.2020 w hereas it ought to have been filed on or before 29.11.2019 sin the order was served on the appellant on 30.10.2019. There is thus a delay of 112 fays in filing the appeal. As per form No.35, the appellant filed the condonation of delay stating that: "due management dispute between all director in related heavy loss such company have closed under registrar of company (strike off) further now one of director has initiated for filing an appeal and close the issue there is no income f or the year ...” The reasons stated by the appellant are general in nature and further in any case, the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to support the reasons stated for the condonation of delay. Therefore, these reasons are very general in nature and hence are not a valid and justifiable reason for the delay. ....... ...... 4.6 In view of the above, I hold that the appellant failed to explain that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause with the requisite documentary evidences. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. We find guidance from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 1987 AIR 1353. It is suffice to say that whenever the reasons are assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then, such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach. 6. In the light of the above, we find it proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the petition of the assessee for condoning the delay in 4 M/s. Grenature Bio Tech Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 15/Chny/2021 AY: 2017-18 filing the appeal and deciding the issue meritoriously by passing a speaking order. Even otherwise, section 250 of the Act prescribes procedure to be followed in disposing the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced as under: “ 250. (1) The 98 [* * *] 99 [Commissioner (Appeals)] shall fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal, and shall give notice of the same to the appellant and to the 1 [Assessing] Officer against whose order the appeal is preferred. (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal— (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorised representative; (b) the 1 [Assessing] Officer, either in person or by a representative. (3) The 2 [* * *] 3 [Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the power to adjourn the hearing of the appeal from time to time. (4) The 4 [* * *] 5 [Commissioner (Appeals)] may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the 6 [Assessing] Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the 4 [* * *] 5 [Commissioner (Appeals)]. (5) The 7 [* * *] 8 [Commissioner (Appeals)] may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow the appellant to go into any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal, if the 7 [* * *] 8 [Commissioner (Appeals)] is satisfied that the omission of that ground from the form of appeal was not wilful or unreasonable. (6) The order of the 7 [* * *] 8 [Commissioner (Appeals)] disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. 9 [(6A) In every appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed before him under sub- section (1) of section-246A.] (7) On the disposal of the appeal, the 7 [* * *] 8 [Commissioner (Appeals)] shall communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the 10 [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner].” 7. Considering the jurisprudence of dealing with petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and the provisions of section 250 of the Act, the ground taken by the assessee vide ground no. 1,2 & 5 are allowed for the just decision of the controversy and the matter 5 M/s. Grenature Bio Tech Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 15/Chny/2021 AY: 2017-18 is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), in terms of the observations made above. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25 th May, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (िगरीश अᮕवाल) (GIRISH AGRAWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 25 th May, 2022 JPV आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.