IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.08.2010

Coram :-

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

and

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.619 to 624 of 2010

Commissioner of Income Tax,

..Appellant in all

Chennai.

the appeals.

vs.

N.R.Mahesh,

Prop. M/s.N.S.R.Exports,

..Respondent in all

41, T.T.K.Road, Chennai-18.

the appeals.

Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,

1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Madras 'A' Bench, dated 01.05.2009 passed in I.T.A.Nos.1546, 1547,

1548, 1549, 1550 and 1551/Mds/2008. Appeal against the Order of the

Commissioenr of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600

034 made in ITA.Nos.310 to 315/05-06 dated 24.03.2008 and against the

Assessment Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

XV, Chennai-34 in GIR.No./P.A.No.AAPP.No.764B dated 31.03.2005 for

the Assessment Years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.

For Appellant : Mr.Patty B. Jeganathan

Standing Counsel for Income-tax

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.)

In view of the common issues involved in all the appeals and the

parties being the same, these appeals have been taken up together for

disposal.

2. The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals) challenging the order of assessment for the assessment

years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The said appeals have been filed with

the condonation of delay applications seeking to condone the delay of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

265, 82, 82, 265, 82 and 82 days respectively. The assessee filed

applications before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stating

that the appeals could not be filed against the orders passed by the

Assessing Officer within the prescribed time in view of the fact that

the assessment orders have been misplaced and the assessee was made

to change the authorised representative viz., Chartered Accountant.

It is further stated that, in view of the above said facts, the

records will have to be received from the erstwhile authorised

representative to the present one, there was delay in filing the

appeals. The assessee further contended that inasmuch as substantial

issues have been raised in the appeals, the same will have to be

heard. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has

dismissed the appeals by holding that the reasons assigned for the

delay cannot be accepted.

3. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeals before the

Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn has allowed the appeals. The

Revenue has filed the present appeals challenging the orders passed

by the Tribunal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal was right in law by condoning

the delay in filing the appeals?

2. Whether there was sufficient cause for

condoning the delay in filing especially in the

absence of any documentary proof provided by the

assessee?"

4. Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan, learned standing counsel for the

appellant submitted that the assessee was not diligent enough in

filing the appeals within the time. Learned counsel further

submitted that the assessee was adopting delaying tactics and

therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in exercising the

jurisdiction in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel also

submitted that even before the Tribunal, after filing the appeals,

the assessee was not represented. Hence the learned counsel

submitted that the appeals will have to be allowed by setting aside

the orders passed by the Tribunal.

5. A perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal would indicate

that the Chartered Accountant, who represented the case of the

assessee, has filed an affidavit