AVNET TECHNOLOGY HONG KONG LIMITED,HONG KONG V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 1987/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Avnet Technology Hong Kong Ltd., the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42, which had dismissed their appeal in limine on the grounds of limitation. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the closure of their operations in India and the departure of the person responsible for tax affairs, leading to a lack of oversight on tax compliances. The ITAT, referencing the liberal approach advocated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar cases, found the reasons for the delay to be bona fide and not due to negligence or inaction on the part of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472462 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others
• Laws Referred To: Limitation Act, Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKTA JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: TAPAS MISRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 22; 274

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “डी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश क ुमार िमŵा, लेखाकार सद˟ क े समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1987/िदʟी/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) ITA No.1987/DEL/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) Avnet Technology Hong Kong Ltd., 22/F, Tower-2, Enterprises Square Five, 38, Wang Chiu Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong, SAR- 999999 PAN: AAKCA-1127-B ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central International Tax 1(1)(1), Civic Centre, E-2, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Tapas Misra, Advocate ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Ekta Jain, CIT(DR) सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 22/10/2024 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 22/10/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Delhi-42 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 11.05.2023, for assessment year 2015-16. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. He stated that appeal before the 2 ITA No. 1987/Del/2023 (AY 2015-16) CIT(A) was belated by 274 days. The assessee had filed an Application for condonation before the CIT(A) giving reasons for delay in filing of the First Appeal. The CIT(A) taking a hyper technical view on the reasons furnished by the assessee explaining delay, dismiss appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee has closed down its operations in India; hence, there was no dedicated person to oversee and follow up tax compliances in India. The person who was earlier looking after tax affairs in India had also left the company. His official email-id was furnished to the department for communication of all notices, since, he had left the company. The assessment order dated 21.05.2023 was never received by the assessee. The assessee came to know about the impugned order only when penalty notice was received by the assessee on email address which was subsequently registered with the department for service of notices. The assessee has prima facie good case on merits, if, an opportunity of appeal is allowed to the assessee, the assessee would be able to show that the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable. 4. Per contra, Shri Ekta Jain representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submits that the assessee was not able to show bonafide reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) with the delay of 274 days. The assessee had filed application for condonation of delay 3 ITA No. 1987/Del/2023 (AY 2015-16) before the CIT(A), giving reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. The assessee has also furnished an affidavit before us, explaining reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons given by the assesee before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are alike. After considering reasons given by the assessee, we are of view that the delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority was for bonafide reasons and not due to any negligence or inaction on the part of the assessee. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 taxmann.com 1072 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides can be imputed to the defaulting party. 4 ITA No. 1987/Del/2023 (AY 2015-16) 8. Thus, in facts of the case and in light of the law expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in accepting the explanation furnished by the party, the delay in filing of appeal is condoned before the CIT(A). The appeal is restored to the file of CIT(A), for deciding appeal of the assessee on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/make submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 22nd day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 22/10/2024 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "