TEEJ IMPEX P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6823/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0604 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Rule 8D
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 68 2 3 /MUM/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 M/S. TEEJ IMPEX PVT. LTD., 302, DEVKRUPA BUILDING, 28, RAICHUR STREET, MASJID B U NDER, MUMBAI [PAN : AA BCT9976A ] VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 7 ( 3 ), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT B Y : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH , AR RESPONDENT B Y : SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 0 9 - 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 6 - 0 9 - 201 9 O R D E R P ER R AJESH KUMAR , A . M: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - 14 , MUMBAI , DATED 1 8 - 1 0 - 201 6 . 2. B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTU RING PRINTED PACKAGING MATERIAL, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 - 09 - 2011, DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 8,37,11,627/ - AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( HEREINAFTER CALLED L D. AO) U/S.143(3) ITA NO. 68 2 3 /MUM/ 20 1 6 : 2 : OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (ACT) ON 28 - 03 - 2014, DETERMINING LOSS OF RS. 4,63,70,252/ - . A GGRIEVED WITH THE SAME , ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE RAIS ED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL , STATING THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.2,71,00,131/ - , REMISSION OF LIABILITY RS. 52,35,000/ - AND U/S.14A OF THE ACT AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES RS.3,94,494/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE OF DEMAND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29 - 03 - 2014 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS DUE TO FILE THE APPEAL BY 28 - 04 - 2014. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON 13 - 10 - 2014 AND THERE IS A DELAY OF 166 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. FOR THAT, ASSESSEE FILED CONDONATION PETITION BEFORE LD.CIT(A) , BY STATING AS UNDER: WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE, THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON 29 - 03 - 2014 AND DUE DATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL WAS 28 - 04 - 2014. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MISPLACED THROUGH OUR OFFICE BEARER ON ACCOUNT OF RENOVATION OF OFFICE AND THE MISTAKE WAS CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF AUDIT REGARDING PROVISIONS OF TAXATION MADE AND EARLIER YEARS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT LIABILITY WRITTEN OFF. AFTER ENQUIRY AND LOOKING TO OLD RE CORD THE SAME IS AVAILABLE IN FOLDER AND HENCE THE COMPANY FILED APPEAL IMMEDIATELY. THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ABNORMAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF MISTAKE BY OUR EMPLOYEE AND MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BEY OND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND OBLIGE. 5. TAKING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INTO CONSIDERATION, LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE STATING THAT - THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ITA NO. 68 2 3 /MUM/ 20 1 6 : 3 : CONVINCING IN NATURE AND D EVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE TO CONDONE THE SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL . 6. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. THE LD.C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION AS THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 166 DAYS WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERITS . THE LD.AR THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE NECESSARY RELIEF MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ALL THE ISSUES ARE FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR , ON THE OTHER HAND , CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED WITH COGENT REASONS. LD.DR THE REFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY. THE LD.DR PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS REASONED AND SPEAKING ONE AND DESERVED TO BE UPHELD. 8 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD , WE OBSERVE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINIE FOR LATE FILING BY 166 DAYS AND THE MERITS OF THE CASE WERE NOT TOUCHED AT ALL. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COVERED ITS FAVOUR BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITS OWN CASE. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION ITA NO. 68 2 3 /MUM/ 20 1 6 : 4 : THAT THE CIT(A) WILL CONSIDER THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND IF DELAY IS CONDONED , THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AS PER LAW. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER , 2019 SD/ - SD/ - (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI; / DATED : 16 - 09 - 2019 TNMM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI 4. / CIT , MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE ITA NO. 68 2 3 /MUM/ 20 1 6 : 5 : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI