Empress Associates Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 266/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4397 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI . . . , !.. $ , ) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.266/MDS/2017 * * /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S.EMPRESS ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., 834, 2 ND FLOOR, RAHEJA COMPLEX, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI. [PAN: AABCE 5048 G ] ( - /APPELLANT) ( ./- /RESPONDENT) - 0 / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.BANUSEKAR, CA ./- 0 /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT 0 /DATE OF HEARING : 05.04.2017 0 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.06.2017 / O R D E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 21.11.2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 6, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.256/CIT(A)-6/2015-16 FOR THE AY 2012-13 AND RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO THE EXTENT P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT AND AT ANY RATE IS OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIP LES OF EQUITY, NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY. ITA NO.266/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 2. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REASONABLE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 4. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE DERIVED NO BENEFIT BY FILING T HE APPEAL BELATEDLY AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENT OF THE APPELLANT. 2.0 ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE RELATED TO THE D ISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY. 3.0 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.87,177/- ON 24.09.2012. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED U/S.143(3) BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.78,15,000/- RELATING TO CO NSULTANCY CHARGES U/S.37(1) OF IT ACT. 4.0 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WEN T ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND FILED THE APPEAL WITH DELA Y OF 139 DAYS, ALONG WITH THE APPEAL MEMO, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A PRA YER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ON A PLAIN PAPER AND NOT ON AFFIDAVIT. 5.0 IN THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR WHO WAS AUTHORIZED TO SIG N THE APPEAL PAPERS WAS ILL AND SUBSEQUENTLY WAS TRAVELLING ON BUSINESS TOURS AND H ENCE HAVE ACCORDINGLY AUTHORIZED A SIGNATORY FOR SIGNING THE SAME WHERE BY THE APPEAL IS FILED. 3. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, O N ACCOUNT OF REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAS, THEREFORE, PREVE NTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE DUE DATE. 4. SUBSTANTIAL POINTS OF LAW ARE INVOLVED IN THE A PPEAL AND THE APPELLANT WOULD BE PUT TO HARDSHIP IF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON THE TECHNICA L GROUND OF BELATED FILING. 5. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE HEARD ON MERITS. ITA NO.266/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: 6.0 THE LD.CIT(A), NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CO NDONING THE DELAY. 7.0 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AR STATING THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT FILED BEFORE THE DUE DATE BECAUSE OF THE REASON S BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ILL AND TRAVELLING ON BUSINESS TOURS AND COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIM E PERIOD. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3), H EAVY ADDITIONS WERE MADE INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ON FACTS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING BRIGHT CHAN CES FOR SUCCEEDING IN APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE PUT TO UNNECESSARY H ARDSHIP OF FINANCIAL INJURY IF THE APPEAL IS NOT DECIDED ON MERITS. THER EFORE, THE LD.AR PLEADED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. ON THE OT HER HAND, THE LD.DR DID NOT MAKE ANY OBJECTIONS FOR REMITTING THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A). 8.0 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE ASSESSMENT, HUGE ADDITION WAS MADE U/S.37(1 ) FOR A SUM OF RS.78,15,000/- RELATING TO CONSULTANCY CHARGES. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ITA NO.266/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: GROUNDS FOR NOT ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION LOSS OF R S.1,61,465/- RELATING TO BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION LOSS. THE LD.AR ARGUE D THAT IN CASE THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED TO BE DISMISSED ON TECHNICAL GROU NDS, THE ASSESSEE WILL FACE SERIOUS FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND FINANCIAL LOSS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT IT IS THE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT OR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE DUE DATE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED ILLNESS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE HOLD THAT DELAY IN THIS CASE NEEDS TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 139 DAYS AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) WITH A DIR ECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 9.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JUNE, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . . $ ) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED: 7 TH JUNE, 2017. TLN 0 .$6 76 /COPY TO: 1. - /APPELLANT 4. 8 /CIT 2. ./- /RESPONDENT 5. 6 . /DR 3. 8 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. * /GF