CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CALPGEMINI CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3296/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Capgemini Technology Services India Limited appealing against the dismissal of their appeal by the CIT(A) regarding the non-granting of interest under section 244A of the Income Tax Act on a refund for the assessment year 2005-06. The primary contention was the delay in the issuance of the order granting the refund and the subsequent adjustment of this refund against a demand for a different assessment year. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not notified of the proceedings due to an error in the email address used by the CIT(A), which led to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays to ensure justice is served.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706182 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA S. MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VYOMESH PATHAK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 244A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3296/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited) Block 3, A Wing, 4th Floor, Capgemini Knowledge Park, Yosemite, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai - 400708 PAN:AAACE2443A Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 10(2), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vyomesh Pathak Respondent by Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 30/01/2024 passed by ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi for assessment year 2005-06 on following grounds of appeal : 2 ITA 3296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited) “ This Appeal is against the Order dated 30 January 2024 dismissing the appeal filed before CIT(A) and relates to the Assessment Year 2005-06. 1) The learned AO / CIT(A) erred in not granting interest u/s 244A till the date of adjustment of refund instead of the date of issuance of the OGE. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the Statement of Facts, Grounds of Appeal and detailed computation of interest u/s 244A submitted along with Form 35 filed dated 06 May 2016. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the dismissal Order u/s 250 of the Act instead of considering factual details already available on record to dispose off the appeal. 4) The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an order without giving a finding on merits on the granting of interest under section 244A of the Act and has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time.” 2. The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that there is a delay in filing present appeal by 232 days. 2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee provided [e-mail] in form 35 filed before the Ld.CIT(A). However the Ld.CIT(A) issued notice to email-Id which being [e-mail]. The assessee has annexed the screenshot in the paper book filed before us. Revealing that, the notices went to the wrong email and therefore none could appear before the Ld.CIT(A). It is thus submitted that, the assessee did not get any intimation of the impugned order having passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that, it is only when the jurisdictional AO issued the impugned order over mail to the assessee that the assessee got to know about the dismissal of the appeal. 3 ITA 3296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited) 2.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee immediately updated the email-Id and contact details on the portal and also filed appeal before Hon’ble Pune Tribunal on 20/02/2025. During the course of the hearing Hon’ble Pune Tribunal informed the assessee that the OGE was passed by ACIT Circle 10(2) Mumbai and therefore the jurisdiction of the assessee would rely with ITAT Mumbai. The assessee was granted liberty to file fresh appeal before this Tribunal vide an order dated 30/04/2025, thereby dismissing the appeal filed before Hon’ble Pune Tribunal. 2.3 The Ld.AR submitted that, pursuant to the above order passed Hon’ble ITAT Pune, assessee filed fresh appeal before ITAT Mumbai. The Ld.AR thus submitted that, the delay of 232 days in filing the original appeal before ITAT Pune and delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal thus may be condoned as it cannot be attributed to the assessee. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2.4 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us. 3. It is noted that, the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing issued by the first appellate authority as they were sent to wrong email-Id as per the screenshot filed by the assessee. The notices and impugned order was not been sent to the email-Id 4 ITA 3296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited) motioned as per Form 35. The assessee therefore was not aware of the ongoing proceedings and order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). 3.1. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that is caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any contrary intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.2. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits\". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that : 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 5 ITA 3296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited) 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 3.3. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee. In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it strictly, the fact remains that, considering such technicalities will not advance the cause of justice. Accordingly the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal deserves to be condoned. 4. On merits the Ld.AR submitted that, while passing the OGE on 30/09/2014 the Ld.AO determine refund of Rs.1,58,11,351/- inclusive of interest u/s.244 of the Act. It is submitted that, the said refund was then adjusted against the demand for A.Y 2011- 12 on 30/03/2016. The Ld.AR submitted that, there is thus delay of 18 months from 30/09/2014 till the date of adjustment i.e. 30/03/2016 in the issuance of the OGE. He submitted that, under such circumstances the assessee is entitled to interest u/s.244A of the Act from the date of passing of the OGE i.e. 30/09/2014 till the date of adjustment. 6 ITA 3296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited) 4.1 On the contrary the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us. 5. On perusal of the records based on applicable law it is noted that, the assessee is eligible for interest u/s.244A of the Act from 30/09/2014 and 30/03/2016. Accordingly we direct the Ld.AO to grant interest as per law for the interregnum period from 30/09/2014 till the date of adjustment of the said refund, in accordance with law. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 30/06/2025 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy 7 ITA 3296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited) By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "