M/s Gen X Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4739/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3486 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Condonation of delay
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4739/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S GEN X COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT, CC-14 , FA-45, SHIVAJI ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI 110 027 (PAN: AAACA2303H) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE O F LAW AND ON THE FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN PASS ING 2 THE ORDER EXPARTE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BECAUSE OF THE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO, WITHOU T GIVING ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,26,000/- INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. (II) THAT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. III) THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY OF 513 DAYS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REITERATED THE CONTENTION S RAISED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND HE REQUEST ED THAT THE DELAY OF 513 DAYS IS NOT INTENTIONAL AND IS BONAFIDE AND DUE TO OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE OFFICE ASSISTANT, MR. RAMESH KUMAR OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THAT DELAY OF 513 DAYS MAY BE CONDONED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED AND MAY BE HEARD ON MERITS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONING THE HUGE DELAY OF 513 DAYS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 06.09.2016 WHICH WAS BARRED BY 513 DAYS. THE REGISTRY HAS ISSUED THE DEFECT NOTIC E AND RAISED THE DEFECT VIDE SERIAL NO. 11 STATING THEREIN THAT APPEAL IS PRIMA FACIE TIME BARRED BY 513 DAYS. IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE SAID DEFECT NOTICE, ASSESSEES AR HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 14.9.2016 RE GARDING REMOVAL OF DEFECT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 513 DAYS WHICH W AS PLACED ON RECORD. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE ARE REPRODUCIN G THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS UNDER:- SUB: - REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1. THE APPLICANT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2015 4 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. 2. THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 10.2.2015 AND WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE APPLICANT ON 11.2.2015 BY ITS OFFICE ASSISTANT, MR. RAMESH KUMAR. 3. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE RECEIVED A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 16 TH AUGUST, 2016 FOR THE AY 2014-15 AND IT CAME TO NOTICE THAT THE OFFICE ASSISTANT TO WHOM THE ORDER FOR THE AY 2010-11 WAS GIVEN KEPT THE ABOVE MENTIONED INTIMATION IN THE DRAWER AND THEREFORE NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN. 4. THEREAFTER, THE APPLICANT IMMEDIATELY TOOK STEPS TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 5. THAT DUE TO THIS OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE OFFICE ASSISTANT, MR. RAMESH KUMAR THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL BY 513 DAYS. 6. THAT AS EXPLAINED ABOVE IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND BY REASON BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED AND APPEAL BE HEARD ON MERIT. 5 FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT SHALL EVER B E GRATEFUL. 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 513 DAYS, W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PLA USIBLE REASONS FOR CONDONING THE HUGE DELAY OF 513 DAYS IN THE SAID A PPLICATION. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE AS PER THE AVERMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONDONE THE HUGE DELAY OF 513 DAYS IN FIL ING THE PRESENT APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/11/2017 . SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 07/11/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 6