GEON INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GEON INTERNATIONAL),DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

ITA 5021/DEL/2024

AI Insights

Geon International Pvt Ltd filed two separate appeals against the orders of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Pune, which were dismissed due to the delay in filing. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the delay, including a significant period during the COVID-19 pandemic and the negligence of the previous counsel in not filing the appeals on time. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay and restore the cases to the ld. JCIT(A) for a decision on the merits, emphasizing the need to ensure that the assessee's right to a fair hearing is not shut out due to procedural lapses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36875 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV SACHDEVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5020 & 5021/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Geon International Pvt Ltd (formerly known as Geon International, D-7, Ground Floor, Rohtak Road, Udyog Nagar, Delhi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAGFG7545L Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 24/02/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: 1. These are two separate appeals filed by the assessee against the two separate orders of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Pune U/s.250 of the IT Act both dated 30.08.2024 vide in Appeal No. NFAC/ 2014-15/10203131 for the assessment year 2015-16 and in Appeal No. NFAC/ 2015-16/10203138 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Since the facts of both the appeals are identical where the appeals were dismissed by the ld. JCIT by not condoning the delay in filing the appeals thus the same are taken together and decided by a single order. First, we take the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16. 3. It was submitted by ld. AR that the ld. JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. It was the submission that the ld. JCIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 2115 days which ITA No. 5020 & 5021/Del/2024 Geon International Pvt Ltd Page | 2 includes delay of 716 days covered under Covid-19 period and remaining delay of 1399 days was on account of assessee’s fault in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. It was the submission that the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dt. 20-3-2017 was received by the appellant on 20-3-2107 for which the last date of filing of return before the CIT(A) was upto 19-04-2017. However, the appeal was filed on 02-02-2023 with a delay of 2115 days. It was the further submission that the assessee has instructed its old counsel for filing of appeal against such intimation order however, when the new counsel was appointed, who while reviewing the old records found that no appeal was filed against the said intimation order u/s 143(1) dt. 20-3-2017, thus immediately an appeal was filed on 02-02-2023 with a prayer for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit. In the said petition all the facts as mentioned above were duly stated however, the same were accepted by the ld. JCIT(A). Ld. AR further submits that delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was unintentional and bonafide on the part of the assessee and was occurred solely due to the negligence on part of the previous counsel. Hence, it was his prayer that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) condoned and the appeal may be restored back to the file of ld. JCIT(A) to decide the same on merits. 4. In reply, ld. Sr DR submitted that the contention of the assessee was that assessee is firm and having facility to take professional assistance in legal matters. Even though where the professional had not performed his duty properly and efficiently, it is incumbent upon the assessee to look after its affairs and must be vigilant about the outcome of the instructions given for filing the appeal. Hence, he opposed the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is seen that it was the contention of the assessee that it was not aware about the non-filing of appeal by its previous counsel though the papers was given on time with the instructions to file the appeal. Moreover, in the first appeal there is a delay of 2115 days and the assessee would not gain anything ITA No. 5020 & 5021/Del/2024 Geon International Pvt Ltd Page | 3 by filing the appeal late. The period of delay of 2115 includes 716 day fallen under the covid-19 period thus in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme court, vide its order dt. 10-01-2022 in suo-moto writ petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, the period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 is to be excluded for the purpose of limitations under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. Thus, after excluding this period of 716 delay, the remaining delay is of 1399 days. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in our considered opinion in filing the appeal is a result of negligence on the part of the previous counsel of the assessee for which assessee should not be punished. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against him. The explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the ld. JCIT(A), who will decide the appeal of the assessee on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Now coming to the assessee’s appeal for Ay 2016-17. As observed above, the facts of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2016-17 are identical to facts of the appeal for AY 2015-16 except the dates of the intimation order and period of delay which is 2188 days in this year. The reasons given by the assessee for the delay is also the same. Thus by following the reasons given herein above in assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-15 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the delay in AY 2016-17 in filing the appeal before the ITA No. 5020 & 5021/Del/2024 Geon International Pvt Ltd Page | 4 CIT(A) is also condoned and restore the matter back to the ld. JCIT(A), who will decide the appeal of the assessee on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes. Orders pronounced in the open court on 24/02/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24/02/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "