Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Fidelis Advertising & Marketing ... vs Acit Cpc, Bangalore on 5 April, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, 'डी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH : CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी अ ाहम पी. जॉज%, लेखा सद य के सम' ।
[BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3391/CHNY/2016.
नधा रण वष /Assessment year : 2010-2011.
Fidelis Advertising & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Marketing Private Ltd, of Income Tax,
No.72- G, Chesney Estate, CPC,
Commander-in-Chief Road, Bengaluru.
Chennai 600 105.
[PAN AABCS 1871R]
(अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. S. Deepasri, Advocate.
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 13-03-2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 05-04-2018
आदे श / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessee in this appeal which is directed against an order dated 21.06.2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed its appeal for want of prosecution.
:- 2 -: ITA No.3391/CHNY/2016.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 109 days. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was received by the ld. Authorised Representative who went out of town on official tour. According to him, said representative could not handover the order and documents to its Auditor. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the representative returned only after three months and immediately thereafter the appeal was filed. Thus, according to him, there was a reasonable cause for condoning the delay.
3. Strongly opposing the petition, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Further, according to him, assessee despite number of opportunities given to it had never entered appearance before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As per the ld. Departmental Representative the law should only help diligent assessee's and not those who knowingly ignore their lawful duties.
4. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. In our opinion, for the delay which was due to the fault of the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee could not be put in peril. That :- 3 -: ITA No.3391/CHNY/2016.
apart, we find the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had disposed the appeal ex-parte for a reason that assessee was not interest in prosecuting the appeal filed before the ld.CIT(A). In our opinion, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has to dispose of the appeal on merits irrespective of whether assessee appears before him or not. In the facts and circumstances, we condone the delay, admit the appeal and send it back to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for consideration afresh in accordance with law.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Thursday, the 5th day of April, 2018, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (अ ाहम पी. जॉज%)
(N.R.S. GANESAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE)
या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे#नई/Chennai
$दनांक/Dated:5th April, 2018.
KV
आदे श क त'ल(प अ)े(षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 3. आयकर आयु*त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. (वभागीय त न/ध/DR
2. यथ /Respondent 4. आयकर आयु*त/CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF