ITO, WARD-27(1), DELHI, DELHI V. ZEUS IMPEX PVT. LTD., DELHI

MA 404/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross objections related to the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17, concerning M/s. Zeus Impex Pvt. Ltd., which had been struck off from the Register of Companies but was later restored by an NCLT order. The Revenue filed MAs against the Tribunal's earlier order, which were initially dismissed due to the company's struck-off status. However, following the company's restoration, the Revenue's appeals were reinstated for reconsideration on their merits. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Delhi High Court's precedent, which clarified the start of the limitation period for filing applications from the date of actual receipt of the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777560 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2024
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT Vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, DCIT Vs. Kiran Motors Ltd., PCIT Vs. Smt. Purnima Sareen, Pacific Projects Ltd. vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Section 254(2)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHILPI JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKRAM SINGH SHARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"M.A.Nos.400 to 404/Del/2024 & ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022 & C.O.Nos. 65 to 69/Del/2023 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F-FRIDAY” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.Nos.-400 to 404/Del/2024 [In ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022] [Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17] ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi. vs M/s. Zeus Impex Pvt.Ltd., Property No.194, Shop No.2, Pocket-26, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085. PAN-AAACZ3569Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022] [Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17] ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi. vs M/s. Zeus Impex Pvt.Ltd., Property No.194, Shop No.2, Pocket-26, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085. PAN-AAACZ3569Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.Nos.65 to 69/Del/2023 [In ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022] [Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17] M/s. Zeus Impex Pvt.Ltd., Property No.194, Shop No.2, Pocket-26, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085. PAN-AAACZ3569Q vs ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.DR Respondent by Ms. Shilpi Jain, CA Date of Hearing 19.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com M.A.Nos.400 to 404/Del/2024 & ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022 & C.O.Nos. 65 to 69/Del/2023 Page | 2 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The captioned Miscellaneous Applications (“MAs”) are filed by the Revenue against the common order of Tribunal dated 13.05.2024 for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17 respectively. 2. Present applications are filed by the revenue on 06.12.2024 and thus they are delayed by 6 days. In this regard a petition for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee as per which it is stated by the AO that the order of the Tribunal dt. 13.05.2024 was served upon the PCIT(Central-3) Delhi on 01.07.2024 and the present Miscellaneous Applications are filed on 06.12.2024 thus they are with the period limitation of six months. 3. Per contra the ld. AR vehemently objected to the condonation of delay in filing the application and placed reliance on the judgements of coordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka in MA No. 308/Del/2017 order dt. 30.7.2025 wherein the coordinate bench had dismissed the MA filed by the revenue by observing that the same was filed after six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed by the Tribunal. Further reliance is placed on the following: - DCIT Vs. Kiran Motors Ltd. in MA No. 18/Del/2023 - PCIT Vs. Smt. Purnima Sareen in MA No. 374/Del/2024 4. Heard the parties and perused the material available on records. Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pacific Printed from counselvise.com M.A.Nos.400 to 404/Del/2024 & ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022 & C.O.Nos. 65 to 69/Del/2023 Page | 3 Projects Ltd. vs ACIT [2021] 430 ITR /522 (Del.) has considered the issue of limitation with reference to section 254(2) and held that if the assessee has no notice and no acknowledgment of the order passed by the Tribunal, the limitation period would not start from the date the order was pronounced but from the date the order was received by the parties. The hon’ble High Court further held that the limitation u/s 254(2) has to be applied from the date of six months from the end of the actual receipt of the order. 5. This order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has not been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid cases relied upon by the assessee. Therefore, by respectfully following the order of Delhi High Court in the case of Pacific Projects Ltd. vs ACIT (supra), we hereby condoned the delay as all the applications are field by the revenue within a period of six months form the end of the month in which are is received and admit all the MAs for adjudication. 6. In the order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in para 5 has granted the liberty to revive the appeal at appropriate time as and when circumstances may warrant. 7. Before us, Revenue has stated that the assessee company has been restored to its original position in terms of the order of NCLT dated 12.02.2021, copy of the same is placed before us. It is requested by the Sr. DR that the appeals of the revenue were dismissed on the ground that the assessee Company was struck off Printed from counselvise.com M.A.Nos.400 to 404/Del/2024 & ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022 & C.O.Nos. 65 to 69/Del/2023 Page | 4 from the Register of ROC which has since now been restored in terms of the order of ld. NCLT therefore all the appeals of the revenue may please be restored for hearing on the merits. 8. Heard both the parties. After considering the fact that the assessee company is revived and restored back in the register of Companies maintained by ROC in terms of the order of NCLT dt. 12.02.201 thus we allow all the M.As. filed by the Revenue and restore the appeals of the Revenue. 9. In view of the above facts, all the M.As filed by the Revenue are allowed. ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022 & CO Nos.65 to 69/Del/2023 [Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17] 10. As is observed from the order of Ld.CIT(A), appeals of the assessee were allowed for the reason that company was struck off from the Register of ROC and no discussion was made on the merits of the additions made by AO. As observed by us, the name of the assessee is restored in the register of Companies maintained by the ROC in terms of order of NCLT dated 12.02.2021. Further the CO filed by the assessee for all the years were dismissed on the ground that they were signed by the former directors of the assessee. However, as the company is restored to its original position, the CO’s signed by Director are in order and are admitted. Printed from counselvise.com M.A.Nos.400 to 404/Del/2024 & ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022 & C.O.Nos. 65 to 69/Del/2023 Page | 5 11. In view of above facts that the assessee company stood revived and restored in the register of Registrar of companies, we set aside the orders of Ld.CIT(A) for all the assessment years and remand all these appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the directions to pass the orders on merits of the issues. Needless to say the assessee should be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these directions all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the final result, captioned Miscellaneous Applications No. 400 to 404/Del/2024 for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 filed by the Revenue are allowed and appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 375 to 379/Del/2022 for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 and Cross objections filed by the assessee in CO Nos. 65 to 69/Del/2022 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-29.09.2025 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com M.A.Nos.400 to 404/Del/2024 & ITA Nos.375 to 379/Del/2022 & C.O.Nos. 65 to 69/Del/2023 Page | 6 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "