Ultra Lighting Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

CO 2/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3766 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 69C; 260A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 ACIT, CIRCLE-27(1), ROOM NO.193, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. VS M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., A - 62, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, MAYAPURI, NEW DELHI-064. PAN AAACM1049C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO.2/DEL./2018 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., A-62, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-INTEREST INCOME, MAYAPURI, NEW DELHI-064. PAN AAACM1049C VS ACIT, CIRCLE-27(1), ROOM NO.193, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MS. ASHIMA NEB , SR. D.R. FOR CROSS OBJECTOR : SHRI MANPREET KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 11 .0 5 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .0 5 .2018 2 ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 & C.O.NO.2/DEL./2018 M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., NEW DELHI. ORDER THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-22, NEW DELHI, DATED 26.04.2017, FOR THE A.Y. 2005-2006 . 2. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLEN GED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.37,50,000/- MADE UND ER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/1 48 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE REVENUE IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS MENTIONED 09.05.2017 IS THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION O F THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL HAS BEE N FILED IN THE O/O. TRIBUNAL ON 27.09.2017. THE APPEAL IS THUS , TIME BARRED BY 79 DAYS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELH I, FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN WHICH IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO FILE APPEAL 3 ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 & C.O.NO.2/DEL./2018 M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., NEW DELHI. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DUE TO SOME INADVERTENT REASONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE SUDDEN FLOW OF WORK RELATED TO OTHER IMPOR TANT AND TIME BARRING ISSUES CREATED CIRCUMSTANCES FOR D ELAY. 2. THAT DUE OVERSIGHT AND MISPLACEMENT OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED ALONG WITH PROJECT PAPERS BY MISTAKE WE CO ULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. 3. THE MATTER RELATED TO ANNUAL TRANSFER POSTING OF O FFICERS AND OFFICIALS BY PR. CCIT, DELHI AND WITHIN THE PR. CIT- 09, DELHI WHICH HAMPERED THE WORK TO BE COMPLETED WITHI N THE TIME FRAME. 4. THAT THE SUDDEN FLOW OF WORK RELATED TO CASH TRANSACTIONS DURING THE DEMONETIZATION CREATED CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DELAY. 5. THAT DUE TO LITIGATION MATTER RELATED TO UNITECH L TD. CREATED CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DELAY. 3.1. LD. D.R, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE OBJECTED TO CONDONATION OF DELAY AND RELIED UPON DE CISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HISTORIC IN FRACON IN 4 ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 & C.O.NO.2/DEL./2018 M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., NEW DELHI. ITA.NO.409 OF 2017 DATED 19.05.2017 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : 4. THE SUPREME COURT HAS IN STATE OF U.P. V. AMAR NATH YADAV (2014) 2 SCC 422 REITERATED ITS EARLIER DECIS ION IN POSTMASTER GENERAL V. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED (2 012) 3 SCC 563 WHERE IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'IN OUR VIEW, IT IS THE RIGHT TIME TO INFORM ALL TH E GOVERNMENT BODIES, THEIR AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALI TIES THAT UNLESS THEY HAVE REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND THERE WAS BONAFIDE EF FORT, THERE IS NO NEED TO ACCEPT THE USUAL EXPLANATION TH AT THE FILE WAS KEPT PENDING FOR PROCESS. THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ARE UNDER A SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO ENSUR E THAT THEY PERFORM THEIR DUTIES WITH DILIGENCE AND COMMIT MENT. CONDONATION OF DELAY IS AN EXCEPTION AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ANTICIPATED BENEFIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT 5 ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 & C.O.NO.2/DEL./2018 M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., NEW DELHI. DEPARTMENTS. THE LAW SHELTERS EVERYONE UNDER THE SA ME LIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE SWIRLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW. 5. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION AR E WHOLLY UNSATISFACTORY. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS BUSY IN OTHER TIME-BEARING ASSESSMENTS CAN HARDLY BE AN EXCUSE, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE FACT TH AT UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE TIME PERIOD FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 120 DAYS. NO OTHER STATU TE PRESCRIBES THE TIME PERIOD OF OVER THREE MONTHS. MO REOVER, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR EVERY DAYS DELAY. A DE LAY OF 335 DAYS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ROUTINE. 6. WITH THERE BEING NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, T HE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF 335 DAYS IN FILING T HE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT REVENUE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE REA SONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS NOT SAT ISFACTORY. 6 ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 & C.O.NO.2/DEL./2018 M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., NEW DELHI. MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS A FLOW OF THE WORK RELATED TO OTHER IMPORTANT AND TIME BARRING ISSUES, COULD NOT BE CON SIDERED AS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE APPEAL WIT HIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. NO SPECIFIC REASONS HAVE BEEN EXPLAI NED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. GENERAL EXPLANATION HAVE BEEN GIVEN, WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVE NUE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF POSTMASTER GENERAL VS. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED (2012) 3 SCC 563 (SUPRA), DID N OT CONDONE THE DELAY OF THE ROUTINE EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, RE VENUE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HISTORIC INFRACON (SUPRA), I DO NOT CONDONE THE DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. I HOLD THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED. THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS REJECTED. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRE D. 7 ITA.NO.6055/DEL./2017 & C.O.NO.2/DEL./2018 M/S. ULTRA LIGHTING LTD., NEW DELHI. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SEEKS PERMISSI ON TO WITHDRAW THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED BEING TIME BARRED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 18 TH MAY, 2018 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.