Mircowave Communication Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2481/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8507 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUTNANT MEMBER ITA NO.2481/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. MICROWAVE COMMUNICATION LTD., 8, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 1 ST FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH, MASJID MOTH, NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI PAN :AAACM3430B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 25/10/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-29, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 14.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.01.2020 2 ITA NO.2481/DEL/2017 1. THE CIT(A)-29 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE SAME IS BAD AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW . 2. THE CLT(A)-29 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 1,82,81,059/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 3. THE CIT (A) 29 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. I. 82.81,059/- BY NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THIS LLONBLE 1TAT IN APPELLANT'S EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEA RS WHICH INVOLVED IDENTICAL FACTS AND SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APP EAL. 4. THE CIT(A)-29 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AND ALTER GRO UNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 3 MONTHS AND 11 DAYS FOR WHICH TH E APPELLANT HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF THE DEL AY. WE ALSO FIND THAT DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARIN, NEITHER ANYONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTER ESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEARD THE A PPLICATION FOR CONDEMNATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DEPARTM ENT REPRESENTATIVE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTAT IVE THAT THERE ARE NO SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONDONING THE DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. SHE SUBMITTED THAT REASONS CITED IN THE APP LICATION ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF RESPECTIVE OFF ICIAL AND ALSO NO EVIDENCES ARE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY SAID OFFICIAL. ACCORDING TO HER, IN VIE W OF NO JUSTIFIED REASONS, THE DELAY MIGHT NOT BE CONDONED. 3 ITA NO.2481/DEL/2017 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PAR T OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDEMNATION OF THE DELAY IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER: MOST RESPECTFULLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 25.10.2016 WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE APELLA NT COMPANY ON 15.11.2016. UNFORTUNATELY, THE OFFICIAL WHO RECEIVE D THE ORDER I.E. SH LOKESH CHANDRA GUPTA HAD KEPT IT IN THE OLD RECORD FILES AND PROCEEDED ON LEAVE FOR THREE WEEKS FOR GOING TO HIS NATIVE PLACE. ON RECEIPT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE RECEIVING CLERK DID NOT INTIMATE TO ANY OF HIS SENIORS OR THE DIRECTOR(S). AFTER THREE WEEKS OF RESUMPTION OF DUTY, HE WAS UNABLE TO RECOLLECT ABOUT HAVING RE CEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, DURING ONE OF THE REGULAR FILE CHECKS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS LOCATED TWO DAYS BACK AS A MATTE R OF CHANCE. BY NOW, AROUND 5 MONTHS HAVE LAPSED SINCE THE RECEI PT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND F ILING OF APPEAL HAS BEEN MUCH DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF OUR EMPLOYEE. THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BEFORE YOUR KIND SELF ON OR BEFORE 14.01.2017. IT IS BEING PRESENTED TODAY WITH A DELA Y OF 3 MONTHS, 11 DAYS. IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE PARDONED FOR THE UNINTENDED LAPSE ON OUR PART AND D ELAYED APPEAL MAY VERY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION BY CONDONING THE DELAY, WHICH OCCURRED QUITE INADVERTE NTLY BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF OUR EMPLOYEE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO A N HONEST INADVERTENT ERROR AND THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OR DE LIBERATE INACTION ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. 4.1 IN THE APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED REASON F OR DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AS THE OFFICIAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY MISPLACED THE APPELLATE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT T HIS STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES. 4.2 WE AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE THAT NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE REAS ONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. IN ABSENCE OF 4 ITA NO.2481/DEL/2017 EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SUFFICIEN T CAUSE OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AS WELL AS CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REJE CT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DISMISS THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AT THE THRESHOLD. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21 ST JANUARY, 2020. RK/-(D.T.D.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI