OZONE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1),DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1029/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ozone Pharmaceuticals Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Pune, which had dismissed their appeal as barred by limitation. The original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed by the ADIT, 2 CPC, Bangalore, making significant adjustments to the assessee's income. The assessee contended that they were not given adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of their appeal. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal to be genuine and thus decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30529 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KAUSHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMIL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 143(1)

Judgement Text

"1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1029/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2020-21) Ozone Pharmaceuticals Limited, 1, LSC Block A-3, Janakpuri, New Delhi- 110058 Vs. DCIT Circle – 19(1) Delhi \u0001थायीलेखासं/जीआइआरसं/PAN/GIR No: PAN No. AAACO0056H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Sh. Shery Jain, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2025 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Pune, arising out of the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the ADIT, 2 CPC, Banglore under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2020-21 whereby and whereunder the appeal stood dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. The case of the assessee before us that no adequate opportunity has been granted to the assessee neither any show caused has been issued to this effect and the appeal was finalised. In support of the delay of 269 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the year under consideration was picked up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) and notice under Section 143(2) dated 29.06.2021 was issued to the appellant. Subsequently, the intimation under Section 143(3) was issued on 24.12.2021 interalia making adjustment of an aggregate amount of Rs.22,09,99,099/-. 3. The appellant at that material point of time was under the bonafide belief that since the assessment proceedings have already been started all claims and contentions would be examined during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, did not pursue the remedy against the impugned intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act but thereafter when the assessment order was framed under Section 143(3) read with 144B by an under its order dated 27.09.2022 at an assessed income of Rs.22,72,50,865/- as against the return income nil and demand to the tune of Rs.7,61,87,590/- was raised that to when only disallowance made in the order made under Section 3 143(3) dated 27.09.2022 was to the tune of Rs.65,51,766/-, the assessee contacted the Ld. Sr. Counsel and appeal was requested to be filed against the demand raised in the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act and only then at the earliest on 19.10.2022 the appeal was filed. However, no opportunity has been afforded to place such fact effectively before the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed in limine. There is no laches on the part of the assessee otherwise in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the ultimate prayer made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was to condone the delay. On the other hand it appears from the order impugned that no explanation was given by the assessee in justifying the delay in filing of appeal nor any respond was made on the dates fixed for hearing before the Ld.CIT(A) and having no alternative the appeal stood dismissed. 4. However, such explanation made by the assessee in support of the delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as before us seems to be genuine and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned. It further appears that the appeal of the assessee has not been decided in its proper prospective on merit and thus, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice we dispose of this appeal with the above observations upon setting aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for consideration of the issue afresh on merit upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the appeal. We also make it clear 4 that in the event the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A), the said authority would be at liberty to dispose of the matter strictly in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rohit, PS Date:- 26.03.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "