FLEX FOODS LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 27, NEW DELHI

ITA 3025/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Flex Foods Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida, which was passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention in the appeal was the rejection of the assessee's claim for exemption of agricultural income derived from mushroom growing under section 10(1) of the Act. The assessee argued that the rejection was without a revised return and that the procedural requirements for a proper opportunity to present their case were not met. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses and the substantive legal issue regarding the admissibility of the new claim without a revised return, leading to the decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes and remand the matter for fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 102858 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, Postmaster General & Ors vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr, Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M.P. RASTOGI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3025/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Flex Foods Limited, 305, Third Floor, Bhanot Corner, Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi PAN: AAACF0108K (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s order dated 07.05.2024 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10425/2017-18, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessee by Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.04.2025 ITA No.3025/Del/2024 2 | P a g e 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to Assessee to present the condonation of delay. 2. In the interest of justice, delay of (no, of days) should be condoned to the Assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107, has laid down that the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach in matters of condonation of delay, emphasizing that a liberal approach should be taken in the interests of justice, especially when no negligence or inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the appellant. 2. Assessee is a non-tech person who was unaware of the assessment proceedings as he resides in the village during COVID year FY 21-22, and assessment notices were served on the email of the previous counsel of the Assessee, who was no longer engaged with the Assessee only when son of Assessee visited him in November in hospital, he became aware of Assessee's situation and immediately filed appeal. 3. It is submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr (2012) 3 SCC 563, reiterated that if sufficient cause is demonstrated, condonation of delay is to be considered favorably. 4. The Officer has not made the appellant aware in respect of any penalty appeal, thereby failing to notify the appellant about the proceedings and the grounds for penalty.” 4. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives are ad-idem during the course of hearing that the lower authorities herein have refused to even admit the assessee’s section 10(1) agricultural income exemption claim qua receipts derived from mushroom growing for want of a revised return in light of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. ITA No.3025/Del/2024 3 | P a g e CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). That being the clinching factual position emanating from the records, we are of the considered view that once their lordships’ detailed discussion more particularly in para 4 has made it clear that jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the provisions of the Act to admit such a new claim even without a revised return, have nowhere been impinged upon, we are of the considered view that the learned lower authorities impugned action rejecting the assessee’s section 10(1) exemption claim is not sustainable in law in principle. We thus accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground for statistical purposes. At this stage, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue afresh as per law subject to a rider that the appellant only shall plead and prove its case, at it’s own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th April, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant ITA No.3025/Del/2024 4 | P a g e 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "