SABARI FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI V. .ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2702/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) - NFAC dated 20.06.2022 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was initially delayed due to the company's closure and the poor health of its Managing Director, who was under severe stress and depression following multiple business failures and the company's strike off from the ROC. The Tribunal found sufficient reason for the delay and condoned it, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits. The CIT(A) had previously passed an ex-parte order due to the non-appearance of the assessee, attributed to the company's struck off status and lack of employees during the appellate proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469598 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी जगदȣश, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2702/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2015-16 Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Old No.5, New No.9, Seethammal Colony Extn., Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. PAN: AAECS 0298R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - NFAC order dated 20.06.2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 795 days in filing this appeal. The assessee company has filed a petition for condonation of delay - 2 - ITA No.2702/CHNY/2024 stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal along with affidavit of the Director of the assessee company. The reasons stated in the condonation petition for belated filing of this appeal are as under:- “The Managing Director of the Appellant company aged around 59 years old was unwell owing to multiple business failures and closed businesses and the appellant company was also closed and deleted/struck off from the ROC, Chennai vide order dated 09.08.2018 due to which there were no employees in the company during the pendency of the First Appeal Proceedings. The First Appeal Proceedings was conducted on a non-existing company during the Covid-19 Pandemic by issuing notices to the appellant and the appellant was unaware of the notices as well as the passing of the impugned order on account of closure of the company and poor health of the Managing Director who was under severe stress and depression. Subsequently, the health of the Managing Director deteriorated leading to various treatments and procedures due to which the appellant could not follow up with the Income Tax Proceedings. The present appeal was filed when the Managing Director received multiple recovery notices from the Income Tax Department after which he approached the Counsel on Record. Only when the Counsel on Record logged in the portal by finding the impugned order dated 20.06.2022, the present appeal was suggested and filed. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed belatedly with the help of the Counsel on Record with a delay of 785 days. In such circumstances, the Petitioners submits that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and pleads that the delay of 785 days in filing the appeal may be condoned considering the reasonable cause explained by the Petitioner /Appellant for adjudication of issues on merits in the interest of justice.” 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reason stated, we are of the view that the assessee company cannot be faulted for non-filing the appeal on time. There is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the - 3 - ITA No.2702/CHNY/2024 assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order for the reason that the assessee did not comply to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). 5. The ld.AR relied on the reasons stated in the condonation petition for non-appearance before the CIT(A). It was prayed that as a last opportunity, the issues raised in this appeal may be restored to the files of the CIT(A) for proper representation of the case. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand submitted that the Department has filed a petition before the NCLT to revive the assessee company which has been struck off from the ROC. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order on account of non-compliance by the assessee to the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. The reason for non- appearance was on account of assessee’s company name was struck off from the ROC vide order dated 09.08.2018. - 4 - ITA No.2702/CHNY/2024 Consequently, the business of the assessee company was closed and there was no employee in the company during the pendency of appellate proceedings. Therefore, there is adequate reason for non-appearance / non-representation on behalf of the assessee company before the First Appellate Authority. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that one more opportunity ought to be provided to the assessee and accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The ld.AR before the Tribunal had undertaken that he shall represent the assessee before the First Appellate Authority and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. Taking into account his assurance, we direct the assessee not to seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall co-operate with the Department. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th December, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदȣश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 20th December, 2024 - 5 - ITA No.2702/CHNY/2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "