MAAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,SHIMOGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SHIMOGA

ITA 1966/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Maax Super Specialty Hospital appealing against the order of the Addl/JCIT (A) -2, Ahmedabad, which dismissed their appeal due to a 26-month delay in filing. The assessee argued that the delay was primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the ill health of their Managing Partner. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's decision on the exclusion of time during the COVID-19 period for legal proceedings and found merit in the assessee's arguments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471035 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V PARITHIVEL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANAY SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1966/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Maax Super Specialty Hospital, Park Extension, RMR Road, Shimoga. PAN – ABBFM 7870 L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Shimoga. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Pranay Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .11.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT (A) -2, Ahmedabad dated 16/08/2024 in ITA No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067667655(1) for the assessment year 2017- 18. 2. At the outset, we note that there was delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for 26 months, which was significant enough. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable. ITA No.1966/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 . 3. The ld. AR before us filed a synopsis running from pages 1 to 10 and contended that substantial delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is attributable to COVID period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022. As such, the effective delay is only of 97 days. Furthermore, the ld. AR submitted that the delay of 97 days is on account of the ill health of the Managing Partner who is Sr. Citizen. As such, the ld. AR before us prayed to direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit as per the provisions of law. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the ld. AR for the assessee. However, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Indeed, the delay is of 26 months in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) but major part of the delay leaving 97 days was attributable to the COVID period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC) has observed as under: 8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No. 665 of 2021 with the following directions: - I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10- 2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15-3-2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 3-10-2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days ITA No.1966/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 . from 3-10-2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 3-10-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 5.1 In view of the above, we hold that the delay attributable to the COVID period deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we direct so. 5.2 Regarding remaining period of the delay of 97 days, we note that Managing Partner was Sr. Citizen and, therefore, we are of view that such delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). As the issue has not been decided by the ld. CIT(A) on merit, we set aside the same to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 28th day of November, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 28th November, 2024 / vms / ITA No.1966/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4 . Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "