M/s. Jay Gee Overseas P. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3548/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6899 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO.3548/DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S. JAY GEE OVERSEAS P. LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 13 (2), 129, AD BLOCK, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. DELHI 110 088. (PAN : AABCJ1624R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 29.01.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. JAY GEE OVERSEAS P. LTD, (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOU GHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-5, DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13 ON THE GROUNDS THAT :- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ITA NO.3548/DEL./2017 2 3. THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.73,703/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,38,852/- MADE BY TH E AO ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S 41 (1) OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DU RING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTI NG THE TOTAL INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION QUA THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN R ELATION TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND CO NSEQUENTLY PROCEEDED TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AND THE REBY MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.73,703/-. AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,38,852/- ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY QUA THE AMOUNT DUE TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ANY PROOF TO SUPPORT THAT LIABILITY STILL EXISTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESS MENT. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING THE APPEAL WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME AFTER DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEEDED TO DEC IDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. DR AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. ITA NO.3548/DEL./2017 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) GOES TO SHOW THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS FILED WITH DELAY OF 480 DAYS. LD. CIT (A) HAS DECLINED TO CONDONE T HE DELAY BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. ASSESSEE PUT FORT H DIVORCE/ MATRIMONIAL/PENAL PROCEEDINGS FILED BY HIS DAUGHTER -IN-LAW AGAINST THE ENTIRE FAMILY WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE L D. CIT (A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT MULTIPLE MATRIMONIAL/PENAL PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED BY THE DAUGHTER-IN- LAW AGAINST THE ASSESSEES ENTIRE FAMILY IS A SUFFI CIENT REASON BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE T HE DELAY, HENCE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY AND IS ORDERED TO BE CONDONED IT AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OF F THE APPEAL ON MERIT, AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 2021. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 TS ITA NO.3548/DEL./2017 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-5, DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.