Amazon Digital Services Private Limited , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 882/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6381 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 882/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2015-16 Amazon Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. (previously Jool Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., No.26/1, 8 th Floor, World Trade Center Brigade Gateway, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. PAN : AADCJ 1977B Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the ex parte order dated 15.03.2024 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2015-16 for not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal. 2. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that assessee has remitted employees contribution to EPF of Rs.8,89,473 belatedly ITA No. 882/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3 and disallowed the same u/s. 36(1)(va) and assessed it u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The AO assessed total income at Rs.2,72,26,783 and book profits u/s. 115JB was calculated at Rs.1,56,29,103 and gross tax u/s. 115JB was determined at Rs.31,27,031 as against gross tax under the normal provisions calculated at Rs.88,32,732. Tax under the normal provisions was adopted being higher than the MAT provisions and assessment order was passed on 15.11.2017. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and filed affidavit for condonation of delay which is extracted in para 2 of the FAA’s order. The FAA noted that the reasons given by the assessee is not genuine and valid and relying on various judgments and rejected condonation of delay of 129 days in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal, without going into the merits of the case. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. The ld. AR submitted that there was sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal and delay ought to have been condoned by the ld. FAA. The ld. DR relied on the order of the FAA. 5. Considering the rival submissions and considering the reasons for delay stated in the affidavit dated 24.4.2018 filed before the FAA, we note that there are sufficient reasons for the delay and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, delay of 129 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Since ITA No. 882/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3 the ld. FAA has not gone into merits of the case, we remit the appeal to the ld. FAA for fresh consideration and decision on merits as per law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 24 th day of June, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 24 th June, 2024. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.