Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312653 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
03-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Judgement Text
"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 384/del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd, T-305, TF, Tirupati Plaza, Sector-XI (MLU), Pocket 4, Plot No. 11, Dwarka, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCB6390F Assessee by : Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv Shri Drona negi, Adv Shri Devvrat Tiwari, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 03/03/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.384/Del/2024 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. JCIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1058547026(1) dated 07.12.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, after ITA No. 384/del/2024 Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd Page | 2 issuing multiple hearing notices asking various questions on the merits of the case under section 250(4) of the Act, on the ground that there is delay in filling the appeal by the Appellant against the intimation order dated 27 December 2018 ('impugned intimation') passed by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore ('CPC'). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay in filing without providing an opportunity to the Appellant to explain the genuine reason and establish the sufficient cause of delay in filing of appeal. To this extent, the order passed is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal without giving any arguments on the merits of the case and in complete ignorance of detailed submissions and supporting evidence filed by the Appellant in response to the multiple hearing notices issued under section 250 of the Act. Strictly without prejudice to above, grounds of appeal with respect to merits of the case are as under 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the additions/disallowances made in the impugned intimation without appreciating that the same is outside the scope and purview of section 143(1) of the Act Re: Disallowance of deduction of INR 4,63,15,569 claimed under Section 43B of the Act on account of alleged non-payment of bonus. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction of INR 4,63,15,569 under Section 43B of the Act ignoring the detailed submissions and supporting evidence filed by the Appellant clearly evidencing the payment/ Reversal of bonus made by the Appellant during the subject AY. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing engineering consulting services. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 30.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 18,85,74,380/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27.12.2018 determining total income of Rs. 25,23,97,927/- wherein, the additions/ disallowances were made on the following counts:- ITA No. 384/del/2024 Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd Page | 3 a. profit on sale of assets Rs. 2,36,216/- b. late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI Rs. 4,69,15,569 c. payment of bonus u/s 43B of the Act- Rs. 4,63,15,569/- 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld NFAC with a delay, which was not sought to be condoned by the ld JCIT(A). Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. We find that the assessee had filed a detailed delay condonation petition together with supporting affidavit, on perusal of which, we are convinced that assessee was indeed prevented from sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal in time before ld JCIT(A). Hence, in the interest of substantial justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file to the ld JCIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law qua the issues raised before the ld JCIT(A) in the original ground. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld JCIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments except due to bona fide and exceptional circumstances. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.03.2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.03.2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to "
AI Insights
The case involves Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur, which dismissed their appeal as not maintainable due to a delay in filing against an intimation order from the Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore. The original assessment included additions and disallowances under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, including profit on asset sales and late deposit of employees' contributions to PF & ESI. The tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the JCIT(A) for a thorough re-examination of the merits, allowing the assessee to present fresh evidence if necessary.
