BUL INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 15(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3978/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bul Infradevelopers Private Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 55, Mumbai Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issue was the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the arm's length price adjustments recommended by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), amounting to Rs.1,01,77,379. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 22 days in filing, attributed to the previous legal consultant's failure to meet the deadline. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, emphasized the need to prioritize justice on merits over procedural technicalities and thus condoned the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33827 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN UNAVEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHUTOSH DASH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 143(3); 250; 22

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3978/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bul Infradevelopers Private Ltd., C-450/3, TTC Industrial Area, TURBHE, Mumbai, Maharshtra – 400 703. PAN: AADCB4921H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashutosh Dash Revenue by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 10.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-55, Mumbai Delhi. 2. Facts in brief are that assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act was finalized on 19th December, 2018 by the AO. The AO had made addition on account of adjustment made as recommended by the TPO vide order dated 31st October, 2018 in respect of arm’s length price on account of adjustment towards sales and purchases made from associated enterprise to the amount of Rs.1,01,77,379/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ITA No.3978/Mum/2024 Bul Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2015-16 2 appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 22 days before the ld.CIT(A). 3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Before us, the ld. Counsel filed an affidavit dated 9th August, 2024 stating that the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was to be filed by 18th February, 2018, however, the appeal was filed with a delay of 22 days because of inability of the previous legal consultant to file the appeal within the time limit before the ld.CIT(A). We consider that there is marginal delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) by 22 days. Therefore, we consider that there is a bona fide reason for delay in filing the appeal by 22 days before the ld.CIT(A) for the reason as discussed above in this order. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (SC). 1987(2) S.C.C. 107 dated 19th December, 1987 wherein it is held that : “The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression \"sufficient cause\". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.” 4. In view of the above facts and findings, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the appeal on merit as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Needless to ITA No.3978/Mum/2024 Bul Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2015-16 3 say that adequate opportunity of hearing will be provided to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 16.10.2024 dk Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "