ITO Ward 2 (1), V. Ardeo Business Centre Pvt. Ltd,

ITA 69/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7123 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S KUMAR
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.69/DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI. VS. M/S. ARDEE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., 16 TH FLOOR, DR. GOPAL DASS BHAWAN, 28, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. KUMAR, DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,24,86 ,124/- MADE IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) IGNORING THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARE HOLD ING OF M/S. GOPAL DASS ESTATE AND HOUSING PVT. LTD. ITA NO.69/DEL/2008 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 154 DATED 20.01.2003 BECAUSE HAVING TAKEN A WE LL DELIBERATED VIEW ON THE ISSUE OF APPLICATION OF PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E), HE COULD NOT HAVE CHANGED OR REVE RSED HIS DECISION U/S. 154, MEANT ONLY FOR RECTIFYING THE MI STAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIG HT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT HAS BEEN BROUGH T TO THE NOTICE THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 4 YEARS 264 DAYS BY TH E REVENUE. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPLICATION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED TO THE LD. DR WITH REGARD TO DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE LD. DR COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(3) OF THE OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT], THE APPEAL SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAINST IS CO MMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMIS SIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 4. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FIL ED LATE BY 4 YEARS 264 DAYS AND FOR THE DELAY, NO JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN F URNISHED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ITA NO.69/DEL/2008 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- SD/- ( L.P. SAHU ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER NEW DELHI, DATED, THE 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.