Precision Equipments (Chennai) Pvt Ltd, Chennai V. ITO, Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

ITA 2269/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5727 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , ! , ! & BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2269/MDS/2017 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S.PRECISION EQUIPMENTS (CHENNAI)- PVT. LTD., NO.26, MOUNT POONAMALLEE ROAD, NANDAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 089. [PAN: AABCP 3452 H] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-5(2), CHENNAI. ( ( /APPELLANT) ( )*( /RESPONDENT) ( + / APPELLANT BY : MR.N.DEVANATHAN, ADV. )*( + /RESPONDENT BY : DR.S. PANDIAN, JCIT + /DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2017 + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.12.2017 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.2267/MDS/2017 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 , CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.91/15-16/CIT(A)-3 DATED 30.06.2017 FOR THE AY 20 12-13. 2. DR.S.PANDIAN, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT AND MR. N.DEVANATHAN, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE AP PELLANT. ITA NO.2269/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 3. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY T WO DAYS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE NECESSARY CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION. IT IS SPECIFIED THAT SHRI V.C.SRIKANTH FROM THE AUDITORS OFFICE WHO WAS HAVING THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), WA S SUFFERING FROM VIRAL FEVER AND HAD NOT ATTENDED TO THE OFFICE FOR THE LA ST FEW DAYS WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE TWO DAYS DELAY. AS THE REASON GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL, IS FOUND TO BE REASO NABLE AND BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE ISSUE IN T HE APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN RESPECT O F THE EPF & ESI PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYEES AND IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE RE-PAID BY M/S.RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., DISALLOWED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY AP PLYING THE MULTI-PLAN. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTE D ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 5. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE SUBSTA NTIAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) TO THE ASSESS EE AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REPRESENT HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) . ITA NO.2269/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE ASSESSEE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES. A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APP EAL MORE SPECIFICALLY GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THESE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS ADMITTEDLY, HAVING NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CI T(A). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE AS SESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 05, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: DECEMBER 05, 2017. TLN + )34 54 /COPY TO: 1. ( /APPELLANT 4. 6 /CIT 2. )*( /RESPONDENT 5. 4 ) /DR 3. 6 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF