Pilot Industries Ltd., Delhi V. Central Circle -19 Delhi , Delhi

ITA 1911/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0667 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Tax effect; Condonation of delay
• Section: 37; 143(3); 115JB; 143(1)

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1911/Del/2021 Asstt. Year: 2018-19 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 15/11/2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds: Pilot Industries Ltd., F-29/30, Gokhale Market, Near Tees Hazari Court, Mori Gate, New Delhi – 110 006 PAN AAACP0655R Vs. Central Circle-19, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Date of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 17 .10.2022 ITA No.1911/Del/21 Pilot Industries Ltd. 2 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T (A) erred in dismissing the appeal by treating it as barred by limitation. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal without appreciating the fact that there was sufficient cause for not being able to present the appeal in time. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was not aware of any intimation having been passed u/s 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, the appellant had no occasion to file the appeal in time. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in passing order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts/merit of the case. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that his action has cause grave injustice to the appellant, as on the facts and merits of the case, the demand created in the Intimation u/s 143(1) were totally erroneous mainly on account of double addition. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred dismissing the appeal based on the wrong premise that there has been a delay of 480 days in filing of appeal. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) is arbitrary 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as not filed in time. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 6,80,782/- made by the ITA No.1911/Del/21 Pilot Industries Ltd. 3 assessing officer/CPC on the account of disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 23,55,051/- made by the assessing officer/CPC on the account of disallowance u/s 37 of the Act. - Rs. 8,15,036/- 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not deleting the addition/variance of Rs. 4,66,22,473/- to the book profit u/s 115JB made in Intimation u/s 143(1). The addition/variation made is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction - Rs. 99,49,982/- 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition/variation of Rs. 4,66,22,473/- to the income u/s 115JB without appreciating that the amount of Rs. 4,66,22,473/- was already added back/disallowed by the appellant company itself in the return of income. - Included in Ground No. 14 The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter / modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. Total tax effect Rs. 1,10,00,623/-“ 3. None appeared for the Assessee, the notice sent by the registry returned with an endorsement “Addressee left”. Considering the grounds of appeal and the issue involved in the appeal we deem it fit to decide the appeal on going through the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 16,63,33,320/-. The Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of Rs. 23,55,051/- under section 37 of the Act and further disallowed Rs. 6,80,782/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide assessment order dated 01-10-2009. As against the assessment order dated 01.10.2019 the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 480 days. The assessee while preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) in Form ITA No.1911/Del/21 Pilot Industries Ltd. 4 No. 35, mentioned the following grounds for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal: 1. “We were not aware of Intimation u/s 143(1). The Intimation u/s 143(1) came to our notice after receiving order u/s 143(3) wherein the income was assessed as per intimation u/s 143(1). It came to our knowledge that intimation u/s 143(1) was sent and we had already received it via mail on 26/10/2019. That the delay in filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to the bonafide and sufficient reasons shown hereinabove. In the interest of justice, delay be condoned.” 5. Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the Appeal, held that the said 480 days delay in filing the Appeal cannot be treated as ‘inadvertent’ and ‘bona-fide’ as pleaded by the assessee and of the opinion that cause for the delay and the reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the same are not satisfactory. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the grounds of delay and latches vide order dated 15-11-2021. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT (A) dated 15-11-2021, the Assessee has preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 7. The Assessee has preferred the appeal before the CIT (A) with a delay of 480 days and the Assessee has pleaded that the Assessee was not aware of Intimation u/s 143(1). The Intimation u/s 143(1) came to notice after receiving order u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein the income was assessed as per intimation u/s 143(1). The Assessee came to know of passing of the assessment order on 26/10/2019. But the Ld. CIT(A) without there being any contrary material to the above claim of the Assessee, dismissed the Appeal on delay in laches. In our opinion the Ld. CIT (A) by considering the reasons assigned by the Assessee for condoning the delay should have decided the appeal on merit by condoning the delay. Further, the Ld. DR fairly submitted no objection to condone the delay and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter on merit. ITA No.1911/Del/21 Pilot Industries Ltd. 5 8. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we allow the ground No. 2 of the assessee for statistical purposes by condoning the delay of 480 days delay in filing the Appeal before CIT (A) on imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be deposited by the Assessee to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, accordingly we restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit subject to the Assessee depositing the cost motioned supra. Needless to say that the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In view of allowing the Ground No.2 of the appeal by restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), the other grounds of Appeal on merits requires no adjudication by us. 10. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on : 17/10/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17/10/2022 Veena/R.N, SR. PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi ITA No.1911/Del/21 Pilot Industries Ltd. 6