NPNS Enterprises Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2168/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9639 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS S VIDYA
• Section: 10B; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2168/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. NPNS ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., 2.12 POONTHOTTAM 1 ST STREET, NANGANALLUR, CHENNAI-600 114. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(4), CHENNAI. PAN:AAACE9793P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MRS. S.VIDYA, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. R.MOHAN, CIT DR /DATE OF HEARING : 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH APRIL, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX, CHENNAI DATED 23.02.2015 IN C.NO.PCIT-4/263/2014-15 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF 199 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE DELAY STATING THAT DU E TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND PAUCITY OF TECHNICAL ADVICE AND PROFE SSIONAL GUIDANCE, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY IN 2 ITA NO.2168 /MDS/2015 FILING THE APPEAL. WE DO NOT FIND THE REASONS STAT ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ANY MERITS FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y IN FILING THE APPEAL. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS CRYPTIC AND NON-SPEAKING DUE T O WHICH THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HA S INVOKED HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. FU RTHER, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE 4 TH PROVISO TO SECTION 10B OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE. IT WAS OBSERV ED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THAT I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN W AS EXTENDED UPTO 15.10.2010 FROM 30.09.2010.HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FO R THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ONLY ON 30.06.2011 . FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVE NUE AND THEREFORE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO E XAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER LAW AND MERIT AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF 3 ITA NO.2168 /MDS/2015 BEING HEARD. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THEREFORE RELYING ON THE DECISION CITED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIZ., I) MALAB AR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD., VS. CIT (243 ITR 83)SC, II) RAM PYARI DEVI SAROGI VS. CIT (67 ITR 84) SC, III) RAJALAKSHMI MIL LS LTD. VS. ITO (121 ITD 343) (SB), AND IV) FIRST LEASING CO. O F INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT (13 TAXMANN.COM 57 (CHENNAI), WE HEREBY CONFIRM HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT:- 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 12 TH APRIL, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 12 TH APRIL, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF