DYNAMIX INDIA DRILL CON CO., New Delhi V. The Assessing Officer Circle 62(1) Income tax Civic Center Minto Road, Delhi

ITA 1771/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0230 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1771/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dynamix India Drill Con. Co. G-4, 208/209, Sector- 16, Rohini, New Delhi PAN No.AADF05426B Vs. Assessing Officer Circle – 62 (1) Income Tax Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 02/11/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26.07.2022 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal disregarding the extension order granted by the Hon'ble Courts for extension of the time limit as well as inhumanly turning a blind eye towards the genuine medical grounds of the CA/AR of the appellant. 2 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not disposing off the appeal on merits, when all details necessary for the said purpose on record. 3. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating and by implication, not directing deletion of disallowance as made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect of employees' contribution to PF / ESI, invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. A perusal of the order of the NFAC show that the appeal of the assessee was filed beyond the limitation period before the CIT(A) and the delay was not condoned. We find from the form No.35 the assessee has specifically mentioned that both the kidneys of the authorized representative stopped functioning and because of the renal failure the appeal could not be filed on time yet the NFAC did not accept this as a reasonable and sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal. 4. We are of the considered view that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal should been decided on merits of the case, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 7. Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 02.11.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:- .11.2023 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI