Mewar Hi-Tech Engg. Limited, Udaipur V. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

ITA 40/JODH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9162 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 40/JODH/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) MEWAR HI-TECH ENGG. LIMITED, 1-HAWA MAGRI, INDUSTRIAL AREA, UDAIPUR. VS D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAFCM 3610 E ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MISS. KAJAL SINGH (JCIT- DR) DATE OF HEARING 10/08/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/08/2021 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, UDAIPUR DATED 28/02/2019 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 2. A. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/-. THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. B. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS, MOREOVER NEITHER THE CIT APPEAL NOR A.O. TRY TO INVESTIGATE FACTUAL POSITION ON THE IDENTIFICATION ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS, AS PER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ATTACHED HEREWITH. 3. THE INTEREST CHARGED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 2 ITA NO. 40/JODH/2020 MEWAR HI TECH ENGG. LTD VS DCIT 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR SUITABLE COSTS. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVE LIBERTY TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE ITS HEARING BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 281 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH AN AFFIDAVIT MENTIONING THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO OBSERVED FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD THAT NONE HAS ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX PARTE. IN HIS CONDONATION APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: OUR COMPANY HAS RECEIVED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THROUGH ONLINE PORTAL, IN OUR CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AS FAR AS HARD COPY IS CONCERN OUR RELATED OFFICE DID NOT AWARE SO FAR, HENCE WE COULD NOT COMMUNICATE TO OUR CONSULTANT FOR FURTHER APPEAL. MY AFFIDAVIT DETAILING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND THESE MAY KINDLY BE PLACED BEFORE THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THAT OUR COMPANY ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SINCE LONG TIME PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER- AAFCM3610E 3 ITA NO. 40/JODH/2020 MEWAR HI TECH ENGG. LTD VS DCIT 2. THAT OUR COMPANY PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AGAINST THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 3. THAT OUR COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGED FROM THE ORDER OF THE SAID COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THROUGH ONLINE PORTAL, WHICH IS COME IN MY NOTICE 15 TH JAN. 2020. AS FAR AS HARD COPY OF APPEAL ORDER SENT BY THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT COMES IN OUR NOTICE. 4. OUR COMPANY IS ALWAYS CO-OPERATED THE DEPARTMENT, YOU MAY VERIFY THE SAME FROM OUR PAST HISTORY. WE NEVER DISOBEY THE ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT. OWING TO INADVERTENCE OF ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, THE APPEAL ORDER HAS NOT COME IN NOTICE. WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING IN YOUR CONSIDERATION THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS LOOKING ALL LEGAL MATTER HAS LEFT THE JOB IN THE LAST YEAR IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2019, HE NEVER INTIMATED ME. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND APPEAL COULD NOT FILE WITHIN TIME. 5. THAT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER I REQUESTED MY AUDITORS M/S SAGAR GOLCHA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO PREFER AN APPEAL TO THE HONBLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 6. I FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY OF 281 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REFLECT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. SHE ACCORDINGLY OPPOSED CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BY 281 DAYS. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT UNDER SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHERE IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE EXISTS A 4 ITA NO. 40/JODH/2020 MEWAR HI TECH ENGG. LTD VS DCIT SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE BECOMES RELEVANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SAME REFLECTS SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE ON HIS PART IN NOT PRESENTING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO INADVERTENCE MISTAKE OF ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, THE APPEAL ORDER HAS NOT COME IN NOTICE AND THE PERSON WHO WAS LOOKING ALL LEGAL MATTER HAS LEFT THE JOB IN THE LAST YEAR IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2019 AND HE NEVER INTIMATED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). DUE TO WHICH THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. AS REGARDS THE SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEALS BELATEDLY, IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT THE COURTS HAVE TO TAKE LIBERAL APPROACH WHILE INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 , THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY PROVIDED UNDER THE STATUTE IS TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF THE MATTER ON MERITS, THEREFORE, WHILE CONSIDERING THE MATTERS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE LAW MUST BE APPLIED IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT COME ON THE WAY OF CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT THE EXPLANATION AND REASONS EXPLAINED FOR DELAY MUST BE BONAFIDE AND NOT MERELY A DEVICE TO COVER AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE SUCH AS LACHES ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT OR AN 5 ITA NO. 40/JODH/2020 MEWAR HI TECH ENGG. LTD VS DCIT ATTEMPT TO SAVE LIMITATION IN THE UNDERHAND WAY. IF THE PARTY WHO IS SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS NOT ACTED IN MALAFIDE MANNER AND REASONS EXPLAINED ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT THEN THE COURT SHOULD BE LIBERAL IN CONSTRUING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND LEAN IN FAVOUR OF SUCH PARTY. A JUSTICE-ORIENTED APPROACH HAS TO BE TAKEN WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A LITIGANT GETS FREE RIGHT TO APPROACH THE COURT AT ITS WILL. 7. IF WE APPLY THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS OTHER COURTS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED CAUSE OF DELAY, THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 281 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASON, NOT TO TAKE FURTHER ADJOURNMENTS. IF THE ASSESSEE TAKES ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT AND PLAUSIBLE REASON, THEN THE LD. CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 8. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR DECISION TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) SHALL IN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING 6 ITA NO. 40/JODH/2020 MEWAR HI TECH ENGG. LTD VS DCIT ANY REFLECTION OR EXPRESSION ON THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE, WHICH SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY LD. CIT(A) INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2021. SD/- SD/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR DATED 12/08/2021 *RANJAN COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 40/JODH/2020) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR JODHPUR BENCH