M/S. Matrix Sea Foods India Ltd. V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4

ITTA/105/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Matrix Sea Foods India Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing their earlier appeal due to a significant delay of approximately 930 days. The appellant argued that the delay should be calculated excluding the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the Supreme Court had waived limitations. Additionally, the appellant contended that the order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not communicated to them, and notices were sent to an outdated address. The respondent opposed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's awareness of the proceedings and their responsibility to act promptly. The court found merit in the appellant's arguments, particularly considering the impact of the pandemic and the lack of effective communication of the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752498 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITTANo.250 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BOKARO SAPNA REDDY; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Condone delay; Covid Pandemic; Income Tax; Limitation Period; Official Communication
• Section: 2604

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR TFIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APP EAL NO: 105 OF 2023 Income Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 2604 ofthe lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the Order dated 23-02-2023 passed in lTA.No.102/Hydl2022 for hhe Assessment Year 201 5-16 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated 16-0l-2019 passed in Appeal No.1021112017-18lAClT.Cir-16(4)/CtT(A)-4tHydt19-20 on the fite of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) 4,2nd Floor,'A' Block, lncome Tax Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated 14-12-2017 passed in PAN/GIR No.AAECM4113H on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax (OSD), Ward-16(4), Hyderabad. Between: IVlatrix Sea Foods lndia Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director, Plot no. 14, 1st floor, Rohini Layout, Sy. No. 64, Madhapur, Serilingampally Hyderabad-500081 ...Appellant AND The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004 Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent ...Respondent Sri Dundu Manmohan Ms Bokaro Sapna Reddy Junior Standing Counsel Rep..Sri J V Prasad, Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax The Court delivered the following Judgment : l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSH}' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA I.T.T.A.No.l05 of 2023 JUDGMENT: (pet Hon ble S Justice P-SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Dundu Manmohan, leamed counsel for the appellant and Ms.Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/depafilnent. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing the order, d,ated,23.02.2023, passed in ITA.No.102/Hyd/2022, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the 1'ribunal), by which the appeal that was preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT (A), dated 02.12.2022 stood, dismissed on the ground of rJelay, in as much as the condone delay petition was dismissed by the Tribunal leading to the filing of the instant appeal. 3. The leamed Tribunal found that the appeal preferred with a delay of approximately 930 days and the Tribunal found that no plausible explanation has been provided for the inordinate delay that has caused while rejecting the condone delay petition. 4. However, the leamed counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee contended that for the purpose of calculating the delay, the respondent AND 2 authorities ought to have excluded the period of two years during which the limitation was waived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court because of Covid Pandemic that prevailed during the period from March2020 toMarch2022. It was.the further contention of the appellant that excluding the aforesaid period of two years for the purpose of calculating the limitation period, the delay in the instant case would be roughly around 214 days. Further it was contended by the leamed counsel for the appellant that it is a case where the order passed by the CIT (A) dated 16-07.2019 had not been offrcially communicated and delivered to the appellant herein and the period of limitation has to commence from the date of delivery ofjudgment upon the appellant and therefore, the leamed Tribunal ought to had taken a more pragmatic and liberal approach while condoning the delay. It was also the contention of the appellant from the perusal of the pleading itself it would clearly reflect that the notices that were issued to the appellant. As also the orders if any issued to the appellant was sent at the old address which they had changed and the finding is that it has not been served and the notice and orders sent has returned with an endorsement addressee left. This also establishes the fact that the appellant was not effectively served with the notices and the copy of the order under challenge before the Tribunal' .l 3 5. Leamed cormsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of this High Court in ITTANo.250 of 2022, decided on 31.08.2023, wherein under similar circumstances the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed and the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was ordered to be condoned subjeot to the imposition ofthe cost. 6. Per contra, the leamed Standing Counsel for the respondenUdepartment on the other hand opposes the appeal and drew the attention of this Court to the finding of the Tribunal particularly that which is reflected in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the impugned order highlighting the fact that it is not a case where the assessee was not aware of the proceedings and further that the assessee itself was represented by a representative before the authorities for dates of hearing and therefore it was the responsibility of the assessee to have been more vigilant while prosecuting their case and promptly challenging the final order if it has being decided against him. Thus, prays for rejection of the appeal holding to be no substantial questibn of law. 7. Having hearrl the contentions putforth on either side and on perusal of record, the factual matrix of the case stands admitted from the pleadings raised by the appellant, wherein it has been reflected that the notices subsequently sent at the appellant's office had been retumed back with an endorsement thal the addressee has left. The appellant himself is admitting 4 the fact that there was a change of address of the appellant's establishment which however could not be communicated to the Income Tax department and because of the said inadvertence; the appellant was deprived of officially receiving of the impugnbd order. 8. Another aspect which needs to be considered is the contention that was raised by the appellant ofthe intervening the period being affected with the Covid Pandemic for a period of two years and for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a sou moto petition had ordered for excluding the said period for the purpose of calculating the limitation part. Upon excluding the Covid Pandemic i.e., from March 2020 to March 2022, the balance of period in the instant case would be much less than what has been projected by the Department that of 930 days delay. g. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration of the fact that, in the event, if the appellant claim is not considered in a more pragmatic manner, the appellant would be left remediless to challenge the impugned order. For the said reason we are inclined to allow the appeal subject to payment of cost for the lapse on his part. As a consequence, the appeal stands allowed, the impugned order dated23.02.2023 is set aside. The condone delay petition frled before the Tribunal deserves to be and is accordingly allowed upon payment of cost of 5 Rs.25,000/- to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority to be deposited within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. That upon fumishing the receipt of the deposit of cost, the f'ribunal shall restore the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. sd/-AV s si?..cgti#xt //TRUE COPY// q SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad 'A' Bench' Hyderabad TheCommissioneroflncomeTax.(Appeals)4,2ndFloor'.A,Block,lncome +ai iil;';;4.c. Guards, HYderabad The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax (OSD)' Ward-16(4)' Hyderabad The Member Secretary, Telangana State Legal Services Authority' High Court for the State of Telangana at HyoeraDao I By Special Messenger I One CC to Sri Dundu Manmohan' Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri J V Prasad, Standing Counsel for lncome Tax [OPUCI .., 2 3 4 5 7. Two CD CoPies I I HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.105 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE ITTA ..-,:: --- . a- ,,-t,._ . (k.' .:: Z4 i.iX 21fi Tt4 "