Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0732 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-06-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
10-06-2020
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
26-11-2019
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA D BENCH, KOLKATA [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] (BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT, KZ & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 2503/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.....................................................................APPELLANT 35, C.R. AVENUE KOLKATA 700 012 [PAN : AAACV 8958 M] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2) KOLKATA.............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, F.C.A., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI IMOKABA JAMIR, CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 10 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JUNE 10 TH , 2020 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VP, KZ:- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 17, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), DT. 16/01/2019, PASSED EX-PARTE, WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY WHICH FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 20/09/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AND CLAIMING CARRY FORWARD LOSS OF RS.85,93,269/-. IN THE SAID RETURN, DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.40,49,933/- RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME, HOWEVER, WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, INVOKED RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES) AND WORKED OUT THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AT RS.1,41,36,211/-. HE, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF BUSINESS EXPENSES/LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.86,48,075/-. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RAISED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.4,78,000/- WITH A SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.4,73,22,000/-. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SAME, SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES. THE SAME, HOWEVER, REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES FOR INSPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IN THIS REGARD. FROM THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES WERE HAVING NO NET WOR BUSINESS ACTIVITY. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE ADVERSE FINDINGS RECORDED BY HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.4,78,00,000/ YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT WAS MADE BY HIM U/S 68 IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 30/03/2015. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM FIXING THE SAID APPEAL FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A ORDER DT. 16/01/2019, PASSED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE SAID DELAY AS WELL AS FOR THE NON- COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER: 3. THAT AN APPEAL WAS DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLATE ORDER U/S. 250 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 16.01.2019 IN APPEAL NO.4811CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 4. THAT THE INCOME AFTER BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT PASSING OF THE SAID IRREGULAR IN HIS SERVICES AND ULTIMATELY LEFT THE JOB OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT TAKING ANY STEP OR EVEN INTIMATING THE SAME TO THE MANAGEMENT. THEREFORE, THE 2 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD WITH. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IN THIS REGARD. FROM THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES WERE HAVING NO NET WOR TH AND THEY WERE NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE ADVERSE FINDINGS RECORDED BY HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.4,78,00,000/ - CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT WAS MADE BY HIM U/S 68 IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM FIXING THE SAID APPEAL FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE VIDE IS APPELLATE ORDER DT. 16/01/2019, PASSED EX-PARTE, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 68 AND THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D , MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE SAID DELAY AS WELL AS FOR COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER: - THAT AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A)- 17, KOLKATA AGITATING THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLATE ORDER U/S. 250 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 16.01.2019 IN APPEAL NO.4811CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THUS DISMISSING THE APPEAL. THAT THE INCOME - TAX MATTER OF THE COMPANY WAS BEING INDEPENDENTLY LOOKED AFTER BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT PASSING OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER. HE WAS IRREGULAR IN HIS SERVICES AND ULTIMATELY LEFT THE JOB OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT TAKING ANY STEP OR EVEN INTIMATING THE SAME TO THE MANAGEMENT. THEREFORE, THE ITA NO. 2503/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD . WITH. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IN THIS REGARD. FROM THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SHARE TH AND THEY WERE NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE ADVERSE FINDINGS RECORDED BY HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT E ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT WAS MADE BY HIM U/S 68 IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM FIXING THE SAID APPEAL FOR HEARING SSESSEE VIDE IS APPELLATE THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 68 AND AGGRIEVED BY THE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 200 DAYS IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE SAID DELAY AS WELL AS FOR COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE 17, KOLKATA AGITATING THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLATE ORDER U/S. 250 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 16.01.2019 IN APPEAL NO.4811CIT(A) -17/KOVI7-18, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THUS TAX MATTER OF THE COMPANY WAS BEING INDEPENDENTLY LOOKED AFTER BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. HE WAS IRREGULAR IN HIS SERVICES AND ULTIMATELY LEFT THE JOB OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT TAKING ANY STEP OR EVEN INTIMATING THE SAME TO THE MANAGEMENT. THEREFORE, THE MANAGEMENT WAS NOT PRACTICALLY AWARE OF PASSING OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER A ND THUS TO FURTHER TAKE APPROPRIATE STEP IN THIS MATTER. 5. THAT A NEW ACCOUNTANT THEREAFTER TOOK CHARGE IN HIS PLACE, WHO WAS ALSO NOT AWARE OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER. IT WAS ONLY ON 11.09.2019 WHEN SUBMITTING E REPLY TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. A.O. IN GROUP COMPANY M/S. INVESCO FINANCE PVT. LTD., THE PRESENT ACCOUNTANT FOUND THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THAT COMPANY UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 11.03.2019. 6. THAT, THE ACCOUNTANT COULD NOT, HOWEVE APPELLANT- COMPANY BEING UP LOADED IN THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER MIGHT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PREVIOUS ACCOUNTANT AND AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH, THE HARD COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN R THE PRESENT PETITIONER PAPERS. IT WAS, THEREFORE NOT KNOWN WHEN THE SAID ORDER WAS ACTUALLY SERVED ON THE PETITIONER- ASSESSEE. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ACTUAL DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER IS NOT KNOWN AS THE ACCOUNTANT AT THE RELEVANT TIME HAD ALREADY LEFT THE SERVICE OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT PASSING OVER ANY INFORMATION ABOUT RECEIPT OF ANY SUCH ORDER. THEREFORE, HAVING NO OTHER INSTANT REMEDY AND TO REDUCE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE DATE DELAY IN THE INSTANT CASE, ON WHICH DATE ORDER OF THE OTHER GROUP COMPANY M INVESCO FINANCE PVT. LTD. WAS UPLOADED TO THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. 7. THAT, ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THEREFORE, A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS BEING FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE DATE 11.03.2019 AS RECEIPT DATE. THAT BEING SO, THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 10.05. TRIBUNAL ON 26.11.2019, RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 198 DAYS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE. 8. THAT, THE NEW ACCOUNTANT CAME TO KNOW ONLY ON 11.09.2019 ABOUT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.0 2017- 18 IN RESPECT OF OTHER GROUP COMPANY. HE WAS ALSO BUSY WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE COMPANY FOR F.Y.2018 FILING OF THE SAME. 9. THAT, THEREAFTER ON APPR THE LAWYER ABOUT C.I. T.(A), WHO ADVISED THAT THE HENCE WE NEED TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE 10. THAT HAVING COME TO KNOW OF OUR DUTY TO FILE AN APPEAL, AS AFORESAID, THE RELEVANT PAPERS IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE MATTER WERE HANDED OVER TO OUR LAWYER FOR PREPARATION AND FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS BEEN FILED ON 26.11.2019 AND IN THE PROCESS THIS DELAY OF 198 DAYS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE HAS BEEN OCCURRED. 11. THAT, THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION BEHIND NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE PETITIONER SUFFER ER BY PAYING ADDITIONAL INCOME- AT ALL UNDER THE ACT. 12. THAT THE UNINTENTIONAL DELAY OF 198 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IS FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON AND TH 3 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD MANAGEMENT WAS NOT PRACTICALLY AWARE OF PASSING OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER ND THUS TO FURTHER TAKE APPROPRIATE STEP IN THIS MATTER. THAT A NEW ACCOUNTANT THEREAFTER TOOK CHARGE IN HIS PLACE, WHO WAS ALSO NOT AWARE OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER. IT WAS ONLY ON 11.09.2019 WHEN SUBMITTING E REPLY TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. A.O. IN RELATION TO A.Y. 2017- 18 IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER GROUP COMPANY M/S. INVESCO FINANCE PVT. LTD., THE PRESENT ACCOUNTANT FOUND THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THAT COMPANY UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THAT, THE ACCOUNTANT COULD NOT, HOWEVE R, FIND OUT ANY SUCH ORDER OF THE COMPANY BEING UP LOADED IN THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER MIGHT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PREVIOUS ACCOUNTANT AND AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH, THE HARD COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN R THE PRESENT PETITIONER - COMPANY WAS ULTIMATELY TRACED IN THE MIXED BUNDLE OF PAPERS. IT WAS, THEREFORE NOT KNOWN WHEN THE SAID ORDER WAS ACTUALLY SERVED ON ASSESSEE. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ACTUAL DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER KNOWN AS THE ACCOUNTANT AT THE RELEVANT TIME HAD ALREADY LEFT THE SERVICE OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT PASSING OVER ANY INFORMATION ABOUT RECEIPT OF ANY SUCH ORDER. THEREFORE, HAVING NO OTHER INSTANT REMEDY AND TO REDUCE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE DATE 11.03.2019 IS CONSIDERED FOR COUNTING THE PERIOD OF DELAY IN THE INSTANT CASE, ON WHICH DATE ORDER OF THE OTHER GROUP COMPANY M INVESCO FINANCE PVT. LTD. WAS UPLOADED TO THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. THAT, ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THEREFORE, A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS BEING FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE DATE 11.03.2019 AS RECEIPT DATE. THAT BEING SO, THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 10.05. 2019. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON 26.11.2019, RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 198 DAYS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED THAT, THE NEW ACCOUNTANT CAME TO KNOW ONLY ON 11.09.2019 ABOUT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.0 1.2019 WHEN HE WAS E- FILING A REPLY TO NOTICE FOR A.Y. 18 IN RESPECT OF OTHER GROUP COMPANY. HE WAS ALSO BUSY WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE COMPANY FOR F.Y.2018 - 19 AND OTHER COMPANIES OF THE GROUP AND E FILING OF THE SAME. THAT, THEREAFTER ON APPR OVAL FROM THE MANAGEMENT, THE ACCOUNTANT CONSULTED THE LAWYER ABOUT T HE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ORDER OF LD. T.(A), WHO ADVISED THAT THE O RDER IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER INDEPENDENTLY AND HENCE WE NEED TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. THAT HAVING COME TO KNOW OF OUR DUTY TO FILE AN APPEAL, AS AFORESAID, THE RELEVANT PAPERS IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE MATTER WERE HANDED OVER TO OUR LAWYER FOR PREPARATION AND FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS BEEN FILED ON 26.11.2019 AND IN THE PROCESS THIS DELAY OF 198 DAYS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE HAS BEEN OCCURRED. THAT, THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION BEHIND NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE PETITIONER -CO MPANY WOULD BE THE ER BY PAYING ADDITIONAL INCOME- TAX ON SUCH AN INCOME WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE AT ALL UNDER THE ACT. THAT THE UNINTENTIONAL DELAY OF 198 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IS FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON AND TH ERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL MOTIVE IN ITA NO. 2503/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD . MANAGEMENT WAS NOT PRACTICALLY AWARE OF PASSING OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER THAT A NEW ACCOUNTANT THEREAFTER TOOK CHARGE IN HIS PLACE, WHO WAS ALSO NOT AWARE OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER. IT WAS ONLY ON 11.09.2019 WHEN SUBMITTING E - 18 IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER GROUP COMPANY M/S. INVESCO FINANCE PVT. LTD., THE PRESENT ACCOUNTANT FOUND THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THAT COMPANY UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE DEPARTMENT ON R, FIND OUT ANY SUCH ORDER OF THE COMPANY BEING UP LOADED IN THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER MIGHT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PREVIOUS ACCOUNTANT AND AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH, THE HARD COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN R ESPECT OF COMPANY WAS ULTIMATELY TRACED IN THE MIXED BUNDLE OF PAPERS. IT WAS, THEREFORE NOT KNOWN WHEN THE SAID ORDER WAS ACTUALLY SERVED ON ASSESSEE. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ACTUAL DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER KNOWN AS THE ACCOUNTANT AT THE RELEVANT TIME HAD ALREADY LEFT THE SERVICE OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT PASSING OVER ANY INFORMATION ABOUT RECEIPT OF ANY SUCH ORDER. THEREFORE, HAVING NO OTHER INSTANT REMEDY AND TO REDUCE THE DELAY IN 11.03.2019 IS CONSIDERED FOR COUNTING THE PERIOD OF DELAY IN THE INSTANT CASE, ON WHICH DATE ORDER OF THE OTHER GROUP COMPANY M /S. INVESCO FINANCE PVT. LTD. WAS UPLOADED TO THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. THAT, ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THEREFORE, A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS BEING FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE DATE 11.03.2019 AS RECEIPT DATE. THAT BEING SO, THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN 2019. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON 26.11.2019, RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 198 DAYS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED THAT, THE NEW ACCOUNTANT CAME TO KNOW ONLY ON 11.09.2019 ABOUT THE IMPUGNED FILING A REPLY TO NOTICE FOR A.Y. 18 IN RESPECT OF OTHER GROUP COMPANY. HE WAS ALSO BUSY WITH TAX AUDIT 19 AND OTHER COMPANIES OF THE GROUP AND E - OVAL FROM THE MANAGEMENT, THE ACCOUNTANT CONSULTED HE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ORDER OF LD. RDER IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER INDEPENDENTLY AND THAT HAVING COME TO KNOW OF OUR DUTY TO FILE AN APPEAL, AS AFORESAID, THE RELEVANT PAPERS IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE MATTER WERE HANDED OVER TO OUR LAWYER FOR PREPARATION AND FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS BEEN FILED ON 26.11.2019 AND IN THE PROCESS THIS DELAY OF 198 DAYS BEYOND THE THAT, THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION BEHIND NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE MPANY WOULD BE THE TAX ON SUCH AN INCOME WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE THAT THE UNINTENTIONAL DELAY OF 198 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL MOTIVE IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY, INASMUCH AS THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS RISK AND THE COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE GAINED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. 13. THAT TO MEET THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE PREFERRED AND THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH APPEAL PAPERS IN MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, PRAYING CONDONATION OF SUCH UNINTENTIONAL DELAY AND ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON ME 4.1. KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE A IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS FOR THE NON PART OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN THE LD. D/R HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. HE, HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. THE DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY CONDONED AND PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SHALL EXTEND ALL POSSIBLE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS EXPEDITIOUSLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10.06.2020 {SC SPS} 4 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY, INASMUCH AS THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS RISK AND THE COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE GAINED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. THAT TO MEET THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE PREFERRED AND THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS THUS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH APPEAL PAPERS IN MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, PRAYING CONDONATION OF SUCH UNINTENTIONAL DELAY AND ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON ME RITS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE A IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS FOR THE NON - COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN THE LD. D/R HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. HE, HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. THE DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY CONDONED AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER , WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SHALL EXTEND ALL POSSIBLE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS EXPEDITIOUSLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE ITA NO. 2503/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD . FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY, INASMUCH AS THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS RISK AND THE THAT TO MEET THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT COMPANY HAS THUS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH APPEAL PAPERS IN MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, PRAYING CONDONATION OF SUCH UNINTENTIONAL DELAY AND ADMISSION OF THE KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN THE LD. D/R HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. HE, HOWEVER, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. THE DELAY OF 200 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SHALL EXTEND ALL POSSIBLE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OFF THE JUNE , 2020. SD/- [ P.M. JAGTAP ] VICE PRESIDENT COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD 35, C.R. AVENUE KOLKATA 700 012 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 5 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2) KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2503/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD . TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026