M/S. UNIPRES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM V. ADDL./JCIT (A), , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 2471/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Unipres India Private Limited appealing against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed their earlier appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The original assessment was made under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee argued that the delay was caused by the maternity leave of their Finance Executive and the turnover of staff responsible for taxation, which led to a lack of understanding of the assessment order. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, which extended the limitation period for filing appeals, and decided to condone the delay and remit the case for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472431 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: SP CHIDAMBARAM
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल ,लेखा सद˟ एवं माननीय ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2471/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) M/s.Unipres India Private Limited, RNS 6, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center, Vadakupattu Post, Oragadam, Kanchipuram 603 204. [PAN: AAACU 9830B] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai. (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S P Chidambaram, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Thiruvananthpuram, dated 22.07.2024. The assessment was framed by the CPC Assessing Officer, u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 01.10.2019. 2 ITA No.2471 /Chny/2024 2. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We noted from the records that the appeal was filed before the First Appellate Authority on 24-12-2021 for the AY 2018-19 against the Order of CPC order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 01-10-2019 and served on 01-10-2019. There was a delay of 784 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had submitted before the First Appellate Authority that Finance Executive was on her maternity leave from 12th September,2020 till 13th June, 2021. Further, between the months of March, April and May of 2021, persons responsible for handling the direct and indirect taxation left the organization starting from the Assistant Manager from 8th April, 2021 onwards. Subsequently, new employees were replaced in place of erstwhile employees and the new employees has not clearly understood the assessment order received by the company. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the First Appellate Authority has not accepted the reasons submitted by the assessee and not condoned the delay, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. The ld.Counsel now before us during the course of hearing stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020 extended the limitation for filing the appeals and subsequently in M.A. No.665 of 2021 had restored the order dated 23.03.2020, in continuation of order dated 23.09.2021. The relevant portions of the order dated 10.01.2022 are extracted herewith. I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period 3 ITA No.2471 /Chny/2024 from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that out of total 784 days delay i.e from 1.11.2019 to 24.12.2021, as per the above Supreme Court order , delay may be considered only for the period from i.e. 1.11.2019 to 22.3.2020, so the total delay will be 142 days only in filing the appeal. In term of the above, the ld.AR stated that this is a reasonable cause and delay is also for 142 days, hence prayed to condone the delay and remit the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. In reply, the ld.Addl. CIT-DR stated that the cause deliberated by the ld.AR does not seem to be supported by any evidence and also it is a make believe story and hence, it should not be accepted. 4. After going through the facts that the delay is of 142 days and the assessee claims that the Finance Executive was on her maternity leave from 12th September,2020 till 13th June, 2021 and further persons responsible for handling the direct and indirect taxation left the organization starting from the Assistant Manager from 8th April, 2021 onwards. We are of the considered view that going through the reasons for delay of 784 days and to meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay and set aside the order and remit back the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of 4 ITA No.2471 /Chny/2024 being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल) (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :25-11-2024 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "