Deivam Motors, Srivilliputtur V. The Departmental Representive,Office of the Income Appellate Tribunal, Chennai

ITA 30/CHNY/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1107 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T. RAMESH KUTTY
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 274; 64

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी महावीर ͧसंह, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी मनोज क ु मार अĒवाल, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 30/CHNY/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Deivam Motors, Rep. by its Partner - Shri K.S. Santhosh Kumar, No.40/170, North Car Street, Srivilliputtur PAN: AAFFD 5475M vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Virudhunagar – 626 001. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Ramesh Kutty, Advocate For Shri B. Sivaraman, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai in ITA No.0518/2014-15 dated 20.08.2019. The assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Virudhunagar for the assessment year 2011-12 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 27.03.2014. The penalty under dispute u/s.271(1)(c) of 2 ITA No.30/Chny/2021 the Act was levied by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Virudhunagar vide order dated 26.09.2014. 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 386 days and assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reasons for delay supported by affidavit. As per Form 36, the date of communication of order appealed against i.e., the order of CIT(A) was received by assessee on 22.11.2019. The assessee filed appeal before Tribunal only on 11.02.2021 thereby, delay of 386 days. The assessee before us stated that lockdown was imposed due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic w.e.f. 25.03.2020. Upto that date, the delay was only 64 days. The ld.counsel stated that the assessee was under stress as the assessee firm was dealer in Hero Honda vehicles and due to termination of Hero Honda dealership and misunderstanding between the partners, the assessee could not file appeal. There was another reason that the assessee deponent properties were attached by the Tax Recovery Officer dated 27.09.2020 and due to that also, the assessee could not file appeal for these 64 days. Thereafter, nationwide lockdown was imposed due to Covid 19 pandemic and appeal could not be filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 20.08.2019, which was received by assessee only on 22.11.2019. Hence, it was requested that the delay of 386 days be condoned and render justice. On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed the condonation of delay. 3 ITA No.30/Chny/2021 2.1 After hearing both sides and going through the facts narrated in the condonation petition and reasons stated in the affidavit, we are convinced that there is a reasonable cause for not filing appeal within time. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.7,48,707/-. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have noticed that the CIT(A) posted the matter for hearing on atleast 14 times but none was present except one Shri K. Suresh Kumar, CA appearing on 25.10.2016 and 11.11.2016. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte dismissing the appeal. Even, we noticed from the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 26.09.2014 that the assessee could not file details before AO except filing written submissions dated 25.09.2014. We have noticed that the assessee is actually non-cooperating with the authorities in providing details or he is totally non-cooperative. Hence, the CIT(A) has no alternative except to pass ex-parte order. When these facts were confronted to ld. counsel for the assessee, he only pleaded mercy. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR requested that the order of CIT(A) be confirmed. 4 ITA No.30/Chny/2021 5. After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be provided to assessee to represent its case before CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The assessee will pay this cost and produce the challan before CIT(A). In term of this, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 th August, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 30 th August, 2022 RSR 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.