Gorur Infra Projects Private Limited , Raigad V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pnvel Circle, Panvel, Panvel

ITA 163/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2737 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.163/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gorur Infra Projects Private Limited 314, Shubham Commercial Complex, Matheran Road, Sector – 11, New Panvel, Raigad – 410206 Vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel PAN : AADCG5519J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt Deepa Khare Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 26-04-2024 Date of pronouncement : 29-04-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of designing, construction, erection and commissioning of various infrastructural project jobs for all types of public utility services of Government departments, local bodies, town planning bodies, etc. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.49,33,920/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 22.02.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.93,59,540/-, wherein he made 2 ITA No.163/PUN/2024 addition of Rs.44,25,621/- by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Since the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 159 days, the CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay in filing of the appeal by observing as under: “1.16. During the course of appellate proceedings of this appeal also, the appellant was asked to furnish the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. However, the appellant did not submit any reason for delay in filing this appeal. Since the appellant has failed to show any “sufficient cause” u/s 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act, the delay of 159 days in filing of appeal is not condoned and appeal is not admitted. Further, as per Sec.251 of the IT Act, the CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. The Act did not give any power to CIT(A) to suo-motu condone the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as the appellant failed to furnish any reason for the delay in filing this appeal.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay, according to which, Mr. Mohankumar P. Gorur and his wife Mrs. Shobha M. Gorur who are Directors of the company, were always away from the headquarters and were at the work site and the concerned Chartered Accountant, who was looking after the tax work could not inform the Directors about the technicalities in filing of the appeal within stipulated time. Relying on various decisions, she submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC may be directed to be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merit. 3 ITA No.163/PUN/2024 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that when the assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time as per law, the CIT(A) / NFAC was justified in dismissing the same. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the CIT(A)/NFAC in the instant case dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay in filing of the appeal by 159 days, the reasons of which are already mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional but due to the absence of the directors of the assessee company from the place of business for longer period, due to which it has escaped their attention and the concerned Chartered Accountant was also not able to get the directions for filing of the appeal within stipulated time. 7. We find some merit in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Ors reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that “when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay”. It has further held that ordinarily, the litigant does not stand to benefit by 4 ITA No.163/PUN/2024 lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (supra), we direct the CIT(A) / NFAC to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 29 th April, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 29 th April, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 5 ITA No.163/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 26.04.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 29.04.2024 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order