MGI INFRACON PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S BIGMOON BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 522/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2023AY 2015-165 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine because it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit without any application for condonation of delay or explanation for the delay. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to condone delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in real estate development, filed its return of income for AY 2015-16. Following a search operation, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 11,79,44,400/-, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The merits of the addition made by the AO were not considered due to the procedural defect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Hearing: 15.12.2022Pronounced: 20.01.2023

ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, dated 26.03.2018, relating to the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :

1.

2.1. The assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of real estate development and related

2 ITA.No.522/Del./2019 Manoj Kumar Goyal. activities. AO has noted that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 26.09.2014 on the premises of the assessee comprising KDP/MGI Group of cases. AO has noted that assessee electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.12,400/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 30.12.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs. 11,79,44,400/-.

2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 26.03.2018 in Appeal No. CIT(A)- IV/11581/KNP/DCIT-CC/GZB/2016-17 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

3 ITA.No.522/Del./2019 Manoj Kumar Goyal. made by the Assessing Officer in sum of Rs. 11,79,32,004/- on account of alleged cash paid by the Company for purchase of property merely on conjectures and surmises. The action being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for relief.

That the orders of the Authority below being ab initio illegal and invalid must be quashed.

4.

Form 36 filed by the assessee reveals that the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 26.03.2019 was communicated to the assessee on 05.04.2018 but the appeal was filed on 24.04.2019 and therefore the Registry has noted the assessee has filed that appeal which is time barred by 234 days. Assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay nor has explained the reasons for delay in the filing of the appeal.

5.

We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corpn. Vs. P.K Saraf AIR 1999 SC 738 have held that even if the court should be liberal in condonation of delay, it should be inexcusable unless

4 ITA.No.522/Del./2019 Manoj Kumar Goyal. sufficient cause is shown. It is not the law that when an application seeking the condonation of delay is filed the court must invariably condone the delay irrespective of whether sufficient cause is shown or not. The case file further reveals that the matter was listed for hearing on various occasions in the past but on all those dates there was neither any appearance by the assessee or his Counsel or any adjournment application was filed. Preferring an appeal does not mean mere formally filing it but also taking all the steps to effectively pursue the appeal.

6.

In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine without going into the merits of the grounds raised therein.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.01.2023.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →