Telangana High Court
M/S. Matrix Sea Foods India Ltd. vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
I.T.T.A.No.105 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
Heard Mr.Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the appellant and
Ms.Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent/department. Perused the material available on record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing the order, dated 23.02.2023,
passed in ITA.No.102/Hyd/2022, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(for short 'the Tribunal), 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 delay, in as much as the condone delay petition was
dismissed by the Tribunal leading to the filing of the instant appeal.
3. The learned 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 learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee
contended that for the purpose of calculating the delay, the respondent
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 March 2020 to March 2022.
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 learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case where the
order passed by the CIT (A) dated 16.07.2019 had not been officially
communicated and delivered to the appellant herein and the period of
limitation has to commence from the date of delivery of judgment upon the
appellant and therefore, the learned 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.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of this High
Court in ITTA.No.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 subject to the imposition of the cost.
6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/department
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 question of law.
7. Having heard 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 returned back with an
endorsement that the addressee has left. The appellant himself is admitting
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 impugned order.
8. Another aspect which needs to be considered is the contention that was
raised by the appellant of the 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.
9. 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
dated 23.02.2023 is set aside. The condone delay petition filed before the
Tribunal deserves to be and is accordingly allowed upon payment of cost of
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 furnishing the receipt of the deposit of cost, the Tribunal 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.
___________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date:05.02.2025
AQS
