TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient cause' in delay in filing an appeal. (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not considering the affidavit filed by the appellant staff who has not handed over the assessment order to the management in time. (c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has not considered that the first notice of hearing was issued by the office of the Id. CIT(A) on 27-04-2022, the appellant filed online reply on 29-04-2022, the second notice of hearing was issued on 22-06-2022 and the appellant replied on 27-06-2022 and again the third notice of hearing was issue on 03-10-2024. The appellant replied /0 10-10-2024. Please refer to table produced by the Id. CIT(A) on page no.2 of the appellant order. The appellant is asking why there a gap in issuing notice of hearing for more then one and half years after the last notice even thought there is a single issue under consideration and the same reply is filed by the appellant in all three notices. Is the delay of more than one and half year by the Id. CIT(A) is pardonable? as the appellant faces pressure of recovery from the department all the time. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue time. The Ld.CIT(A), thus dismissed the appeal in limine. 2.1 On set of the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order was passed during COVID-19 pandemic. And the date for filing of appeal was during the COVID period. It was submitted that, affidavit of the employee who collected the assessment order received by post in January 2020 is pleased on record. Ld. AR relying on affidavit submitted that the employee kept assessment order in the drawer and forgot to hand over to the Directors of the assessee. Subsequently, when the office remained closed during the COVID-19 pandemic for more than one and half year, causing delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). For the sake of convenience the affidavit of the employee relied by Ld.AR is scanned and reproduced as under: "In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 and of M/s CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, U65990MH1996PTC099834 This is with respect to your application (Form FTE) dated 16/04/2012 vide SRN B36920411. Notice is hereby given pursuant to sub-section (3) of section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 that at the expiration of thirty days from the date hereof the name of the M/s CAPCO F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7) and held that mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Madras High Court further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. 6.1 On merit the issue is in favour of the assessee. But there is a technical defect in the appeal since the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. The assessee filed an affidavit saying that the appeal was not filed because of the Counsel's inability to file the appeal. The Revenue has not filed any counter affidavit to deny the allegation made by the assessee. While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned." 3.3 In the present facts, we have examined whether the reason stated by the assessee to seek condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A) are sufficient to condone the delay and whether, there exists sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) within the period of limitation. The assessee must show that, it was diligent in taking appropriate steps and the delay was caused, notwithstanding with its due diligence. It is for the party concerned to explain the reasons for delay and it is not the function of concerned authorities often to find cause for delay. The Court/authority thus has to examine whether the sufficient cause was shown by the party for condoning the delay, and whether such cause is reasonable or not. 3.4 In the present case in hand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal, this decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court is applicable to the present facts of the case. A similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 3.7 We also refer to the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi reported in AIR 1978 SC 537 held that, nonfiling of affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of delay may be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 3.8 In this case, the Revenue has not filed any counter affidavit opposing the application of the assessee, therefore, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that; "It do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." Based on the discussions, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a company dealing in listed and unlisted securities. For your under consideration assessee did not file any return of income and therefore the Ld.AO issued notice under section 148 of the act on 22/03/2019. The Ld.AR submitted that during the assessment proceedings, assessee informed vide letter dated 07/09/2018 regarding strike off of company with effect from 03/05/2012. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the acknowledgement of said later at page 2 of the paper book. For the sake of convenience the said letter is scanned and reproduced as under: To, Smt. Usha Srinivasan Income Tax Officer-15(1)(3), Room No. 158, Ground Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai 400 020. Dear Sir, Sub: Scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Capco Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12-showse reg. PAN: AABCC 8254 A Your Letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gister of the companies and ceases to exist. In contrast, section 250 of 2013 Act, stats that, where a company stands dissolved under section 248, it shall on and from the date mentioned in the notice under sub-section (5) of that section cease to operate as a company and the Certificate of Incorporation issued to it shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such date except for the purpose of realising the amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the company. (emphasis supplied) 5.2 Such exception provided u/s. 250(5) of 2013 Act is absent u/s. 250(5) of 1956 Act. Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 observed and held as under: "3. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the assessment has been framed/made on a nonexistent company since the assessee company has been dissolved/struck off from the Register of Registrar of Companies after thirty (30) days from 03.05.2012. Pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14.11.2018 it has been brought to the notice of AO vide letter dated 07.09.2018 [ITO-15(1)(3)] that the assessee company ....