Worldlink Telecom Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Central Circle- 32, New Delhi

ITA 4719/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9017 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHMA SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI F BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4719/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 WORLDLINK TELECOM LTD., 3198/15, 4 TH FLOOR, GALI NO.1, SANGATRASHAN PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI-110055. PAN-AAACW3782A VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. SUSHMA SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 02.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 .08.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2015-16 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-30, NEW DE LHI DATED 26.04.2018. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A SSESSMENT ORDER OF THE LD.AO AND DISMISS PETITION OF CONDONATION OF DE LAY AS NON- MAINTAINABLE OF CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISS PETITION OF CONDONATION OF DEL AY FILING APPEAL (11 DAYS) AS NON-MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT CONSIDER THE FACTS EVID ENCE SUBMISSION MADE BY APPELLANT IN CORRECT PROSPECTIVE. ITA NO.4719/DEL/2018 PAGE | 2 3. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D CIT(A) WAS DISMISS APPEAL AS NON-MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE WITH APPELLANT AND NOT GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO APPE LLANT SUBMIT SUBMISSION TO JUSTIFIED AND CONSIDER THE APPEAL GRO UND NO.3 & 4. 4. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) ERRED TO DISMISS PETITION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AS NON-MAI NTAINABLE NOT GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT SUBMIT SUBMISSION T O JUSTIFIED AND CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARE RS.8,85,83,7 50/- MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF RS.8,85,83,750/- BY LD.AO. 5. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD .CIT(A) ERRED TO DISMISS PETITION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AS NON-MAI NTAINABLE NOT GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT SUBMIT SUBMISSION T O JUSTIFIED AND CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON DISALLOWANCE AND OTHER EXPENSES RS.20 ,772/- BY LD.AO. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL FILED BEFOR E LD. CIT(A), WAS DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY TIME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BARRED BY 11 DAYS. THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL W AS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. LD.CIT DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THOROUGHLY NEGLIGENT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD.CIT DR AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE FIND THAT BEFORE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 11 DAYS. THE REASONS STATED IN THE APPLICATION WERE THAT THE DELAY WHO ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE OF LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDED ITA NO.4719/DEL/2018 PAGE | 3 OVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECEIVED ON 14.12.2017 TO HIS COUNSEL BUT DUE TO OVERSIGHT AT THE OFFICE, APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED. WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY LD.CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE PETITIO N FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ONLY UPON BEING REQUIRED. THE PETITION OF THE APPELLANT IS FILED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER WITHOUT ANY AFFIDAVIT. INFACT, E ACH DAY OF DELAY HAS TO BE EXPLAINED TRUTHFULLY AND SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT(S)/EVIDENCE(S). THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THE CASUAL MANNER IN WHICH THE APPEAL WAS FILED BELATEDLY, IS CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS FILED ONL Y UPON BEING REQUIRED, AND THAT TOO IN A PERFUNCTORY MANNER. THUS, THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH BEFORE ME IF HE HAD SUFFICIENT CA USE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL IN TIME. AS SUCH, THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINABLE. 5. THE REASONING FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL AS RECEIVE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IF THERE WAS ANY DEFECT INTO THE APPLICATION. THEREFO RE, CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS A SMALL DELAY OF 11 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS D EMONSTRATED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE LD.C IT(A). WE, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND RESTORE THE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS ON M ERIT BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THI S APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.4719/DEL/2018 PAGE | 4 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRT UAL HEARING ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2021. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI