Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 311744 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
02-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
F
Assessment Year
2020-2021
Judgement Text
" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4508/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rai Innotech Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 69/6A, Main Rama Road, Industrial Area, Karam Pura West Delhi, New Delhi-110015 PAN No.AAJCR1785M Vs. DCIT Circle – 19 (1) Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Ms. Uma Upaddhyay, CA Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra,Sr. DR Date of hearing: 24/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02/05/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the assessee is against the order 08.12.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] 2 passing against the assessment order vide order dated 18.12.2021 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The appeal is filed by 233 days delay and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of the assessee. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the reasons mentioned in the application for the condonation of the delay supported by the affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, therefore, in the interest of justice the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, 2. On the and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred, both on facts and in law, in dismissing 3 the appeal filed by the assessee rejecting the application of condonation of delay in filing of appeal filed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A), is bad in law having been passed exparte without giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred, both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, without giving any findings on merits of the case. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO, CPC in denying the benefit of the option of lower rate of lax exercised by the assessee under 4 section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act and creating the tax demand of Rs. 11,15,170/- and interest of Rs. 1,98,931/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirning the above action of the AO, (CPC) despite the fact that assessee has complied with all the conditions specified under section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO (CPC) has erred in applying the tax rate of 30% as against the tax rate of 25% applicable to the assessee company as per the rates prescribed in the First Schedule, Part 1, Paragraph E to the Finance Act, 2020. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 5 4 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,35,73,150/-. The return of income was processed by the CPC Bangaluru, and intimation u/s 143(1) for the A.Y. was passed raising the demand of tax along with interest of Rs. 10,65,840/-. Aggrieved the order of the CPC Bangaluru, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who vide his order dated 18-12- 2023 dismissed the appeal treated as time barred. Being aggrieved the order of the LD. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has received the intimation order for the subsequent assessment year i.e.2021-22 then he came to know that some adjustment of old demand related to A.Y.2020-21 has been made by the CPC u/s 245 of the Act. The assessee has taken the matter with CPC but no positive response has been received. The assessee did not have the knowledge of the Act and was not aware that the appeal can be filed against the intimation order. He has 6 submitted that sufficient cause has been explained for such delay. 6. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for condone the delay in filling the appeal. She further stated that the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the appeal was dismissed on the limitation ground. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have heard the appeal on merit. Therefore, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the matter is remand back to the LD.CIT(A) to decide as a fresh according to law after giving the opportunity of the being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the LD. CIT(A) 7 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 02.05.2025 Neha, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "
