NAKSHATRA METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. ITO,WARD 18(1), DELHI

ITA 1198/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nakshatra Metals Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal by the CIT(A) due to a purported delay in filing, which was later argued to be within the acceptable timeframe based on the service date of the assessment order. The tribunal found that the delay was due to reasonable cause and not adequately addressed by the CIT(A), leading to the decision to remit the case back for a substantive hearing on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471548 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALJEET KAUR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained expenditure; Source of fund
• Section: 147; 148; 250; 69C; 2

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1198/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2015-16 NAKSHATRA METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, 13, AJENDRA MARKET 7259, PREM NAGAR, SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI – 7 (PAN: AACCM8257F) VS. ITO, WARD 18(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 30.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 01.01.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 19.01.2024, relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal treating the same as filed beyond the time specified u/s 249(2) 2 | P a g e of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the certified copy of the assessment order was served on the assessee on 17.11.2022 and the appeal was filed on 02.12.2022 within specified time of 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment. 1.1 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred indismissing the appeal treating the same as filed beyond the time specified u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without giving an opportunity to the appellant regarding the issue of late filing of appeal. 1.2 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the time specified u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had issued notices u/s 250 of the Act and also obtained Remand Report from the Ld. Assessing Officer on the submissions made by the assessee, which demonstrate that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had admitted the appeal for adjudication. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not condoning the alleged delay in filing the appeal whereas there was good and sufficient cause with the appellant in not presenting the appeal within the time specified u/s 249(2) of the Act. 2. That having regard tothe facts andcircumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,45,08,086/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of total purchases/imports made by the appellant treating the same as made from unexplained sources, without properly appreciating facts of the case that the said purchases / imports have been made by the appellant from the disclosed sources of income. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend, or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income for the AY 2015-16. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.3.2021 as per information available with AO. The assessee has remained unresponsive during the 3 | P a g e assessment proceedings. The AO vide order dated 30.3.2022 made addition of Rs. 3,45,08,086/- u/s. 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that there was a delay of 217 days in filing the appeal before him and therefore, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal on this account, without dealing with the reasonable cause attributable for delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 5. On perusal of the order sheets, it reveals that since 05.08.2024, this matter has been adjourning from time to time mostly at the request of the Ld. AR. However, when the matter was called on Board on 30.12.2024, none appeared on behalf of the assesssee, hence, we are proceeding to decide the appeal exparte qua the assessee. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. We find that assessee has stated in the Grounds of Appeal that the delay in dispute was due to reasonable cause that the certified copy of the assessment order was served on the assessee on 17.11.2022 and the appeal was filed on 02.12.2022 within specified time of 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment. This ground taken by the assessee has not been controverted by the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the delay of 217 days is hereby condoned and the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CITA(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, 4 | P a g e after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 01/01/2025. Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "