Ankur Fabrics And Construction Private Limited, Surat V. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat, Surat

ITA 419/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0572 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH M. UPADHAYAY

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरतɊायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANAND PURUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.418/SRT/2024 (AY 2011-12) (Hybrid hearing) Krutika Textiles Mills Private Limited, 39, Sugam Society, Adajan Patiya Rander Road, Surat-394510 [PAN AACCK 4152 E] Vs ITO Ward -1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395007 अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ /Respondent आ.अ.सं./ITA No.419/SRT/2024 (AY 2011-12) Ankur Fabrics and Construction Private Limited, 39, Sugam Society, Adajan Patiya Rander Road, Surat- 394510 [PAN AAECA 8587 H] Vs ITO Ward -1(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395007. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ /Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rajesh M. Upadhayay, AR राजˢ की ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 15.04.2024 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 31.07.2024 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement 31.07.2024 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 14.12.2023 and 28.10.2023 both for the same assessment years i.e., 2011-12. In both the appeals the ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer (AO) in ex-parte order. Since the facts in both the appeals are certain common, therefore, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid conflicting decision. ITA No. 418 & 419/Srt/2024 Krutika Textiles Mills Private Limited & Ankur Fabrics and Construction Pvt Ltd 2 2. Rival submission of parties heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submits that there is delay of 60 days in ITA No. 518/Srt/2024 and 107 days in ITA No. 419/Srt/2024 in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavit of one of the Director of the assessee for explaining the delay. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 14.12.2023 and on 28.10.2023 and the assessee was required to file appeal within 60 days. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the tax matters of assessee were handled by Kansariwala and Chevli, CA firm, who have file written submissions in response to the notice of ld CIT(A). The said CA firm of the assessee not informed the assessee about the service of order if it was served on them or not, the assessee was not aware about the dismissal of the appeal. The assessee came to know about the dismissal of the appeal when their regular income tax Advocate Kishorbhai Patel inquires about the status of the appeal and informed the Directors of the assessee Company in March 2024. The assessee immediately took step for filing appeal before Tribunal. Non-filing of appeal in time was neither intentional nor deliberate but for the reasons that the assessee was not aware about passing of the impugned order. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is given to the assessee. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order without considering the submissions filed by the assessee in response to various notices issue ITA No. 418 & 419/Srt/2024 Krutika Textiles Mills Private Limited & Ankur Fabrics and Construction Pvt Ltd 3 to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the finding of Assessing Officer in a non-speaking order. Order of ld. CIT(A) is not in consonance with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld AR for the assessee prayed for restoring the appeal to the file of ld CIT(A) for passing the order on merit afresh after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue on the issue of condonation of delay, submits that the assessee is casual and no plausible or reasonable explanation is given for condoning such a long delay. On merit the ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that in case the bench is convinced to condone the delay the matter may be restored to ld CIT(A) for passing the order afresh. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. First, we shall consider the plea of ld AR of the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before Tribunal. The main contention of ld. AR of assessee is that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate for the reasons that they were not informed by their CA who were representing the assessee before CIT(A) and that on coming to know that dismissal order is passed by the ld. CIT(A) and that immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavit of Jaswantiben T Patel, Director of assessee-company to substantiate the contention of delay. Considering the fact that there is no inordinate delay in filing appeal belatedly and the delay is not inordinate or ITA No. 418 & 419/Srt/2024 Krutika Textiles Mills Private Limited & Ankur Fabrics and Construction Pvt Ltd 4 intentional or deliberate thus, keeping in view the principal that when the technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are kept against each other, the cause of substantial justice must be prevailed. Thus, the delay in filing appeal is condoned in both the appeal. Now adverting the merits of the case. 6. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in ex parte order without discussing the merit of the case. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the assessee in response to notices of the ld CIT(A) uploaded their submissions which were not considered and the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. On considering the facts and the nature of orders of ld CIT(A) and without going on the merits or demerits of the case, we find that the order of ld CIT(A) is not as per mandates of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. The ld CIT(A) has not considered the bare facts available on record and the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the action of AO in non-speaking order, therefore, the order of ld CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is restored the appeal back his file for passing order afresh and in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file their submissions and the required evidence to support their claim in the return of income. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in quantum assessment in is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 418 & 419/Srt/2024 Krutika Textiles Mills Private Limited & Ankur Fabrics and Construction Pvt Ltd 5 7. In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No. 418/SRT/2024 and 419/Srt/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 31 st July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANAND PURSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) [लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] [Ɋाियक सद˟ JUDICIAL MEMBER] Surat, Dated: 31/07/2024 Self Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File True copy/ Sr. Private Secretary/Private Secretary/Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat True copy///