Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH: AGRA
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR,AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA
BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER,AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A No.46 to 52/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 to 2018-19)
M/s. Waheguru Business P. Ltd. Vs.. DCIT-CC Sarv Nagar, C.P. Mission Aaykar Bhawan Jhansi – Agra PAN No.AABCW0558P (Assessee) (Revenue)
I.T.A No. 53 to 59/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 to 2018-19)
Sh. Suraj Mal Agarwal, Vs.. DCIT-CC 421, Malipada, DhauliPiyau Aaykar Bhawan Mathura – Agra PAN No. AGGPA2247K (Assessee) (Revenue)
I.T.A No. 60 to 66/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 to 2018-19)
Shri Kailash Singh Gurjar, Vs.. DCIT-CC 1422, Siari Bazar, Premganj Aaykar Bhawan Jhansi – Agra PAN No. AXDPG0967C (Assessee) (Revenue)
I.T.A No. 46 to52 /Agra/2020& Others. 2
I.T.A No. 67 to 71/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 to 2018-19)
M/s. Singh Infrahome P. Ltd. Vs.. DCIT-CC 959/53, Sarv Nagar, C.P. Aaykar Bhawan Mission, Agra Jhansi – PAN No. AATCS9090C (Revenue) (Assessee)
I.T.A No. 73 to 79/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 to 2018-19)
Shri Pramod Kumar Agarwal Vs.. DCIT-CC 33/7/203, Basant Market, Aaykar Bhawan Balkeshwar Agra Agra – PAN No. AEEPA4111H (Revenue) (Assessee)
I.T.A No. 80 to 85/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 to 2018-19)
M/s. Suraj Protiens P. Ltd. Vs.. DCIT-CC 241, Malipada, DhauliPiyau Aaykar Bhawan Mathura – Agra PAN No. AARCS5938H (Assessee) (Revenue)
Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Sunil Bajpai, CIT DR. Mazhar Akram, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing 03.02.2021
I.T.A No. 46 to 52 /Agra/2020 & Others. 3
Date of 03.02.2021 Pronouncement
ORDER PER, BENCH:
1.These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the identical and the common order passed by the Commissioner appeal, whereby the Commissioner had declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal is against the order passed by the assessing officer under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act.
The assessee had raised the identical grounds in all the above appeals. We are reproducing herein below the grounds raised by the assessee in each set of appeals, which are to the following effect
ITA 46 TO 52 1. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 2. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay of 30 days ignoring the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 3. BECAUSE, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits ignoring that there was a (reasonable cause) for omitting to make compliance during the course of Assessment Proceeding. 4. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter penalty order passed by the 'AO' and as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both on facts and in law. ITA 53 TO 59
I.T.A No. 46 to52 /Agra/2020& Others. 4
BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 6. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay of 49 days ignoring the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 7. BECAUSE, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits ignoring that there was a (reasonable cause) for omitting to make compliance during the course of Assessment Proceeding. 8. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter penalty order passed by the 'AO' and as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both on facts and in law. ITA 60 TO 66 1. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 2. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay of 33 days ignoring the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 3. BECAUSE, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits ignoring that there was a (reasonable cause) for omitting to make compliance during the course of Assessment Proceeding. 4. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter penalty order passed by the 'AO' and as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both on facts and in law. ITA 67 TO 71 1. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 2. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay of 30 days ignoring the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 3. BECAUSE, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits ignoring that there was a (reasonable cause) for omitting to make compliance during the course of Assessment Proceeding. 4. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter penalty order passed by the 'AO' and as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both on facts and in law. ITA 73 TO 79 1. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’.
I.T.A No. 46 to 52 /Agra/2020 & Others. 5
BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay of 51 days ignoring the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 3. BECAUSE, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits ignoring that there was a (reasonable cause) for omitting to make compliance during the course of Assessment Proceeding. 4. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter penalty order passed by the 'AO' and as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both on facts and in law. ITA 80 TO 85 1. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 2. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay of 49 days ignoring the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 3. BECAUSE, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits ignoring that there was a (reasonable cause) for omitting to make compliance during the course of Assessment Proceeding. 4. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter penalty order passed by the 'AO' and as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both on facts and in law.
Brief submissions
At the outset the ld. AR for the assessee had submitted that there was a reasonable and plausible cause for not filing the appeal within the statutory time as provided under the Act before the learned CIT appeal, as the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal on account of the covid-19, and there was lot of technical and practical issues which had resulted into delay in filing the appeal. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that in fact assessment was completed by the lower authorities under section 143 (3)
I.T.A No. 46 to52 /Agra/2020& Others. 6
of the Act. He had also drawn our attention to the order passed by the
assessing officer in the assessment proceedings . It was submitted that
there was no citation of any non-cooperation by the assessee during the
assessment proceedings, rather it was a case of Corporation by the
assessee in the assessment proceedings and finalisation of assessment on
the return of income. He relied upon the decision of the High Court and of
the tribunal, wherein the courts have deleted the penalty as the
assessment was completed under section 143 (3) of the Act.
3.1 In respect to the appeal I.T.A No. 73 to 79/Agra/2020 and ITA 80 TO 85, it was submitted that the assessee is availing the VSV and therefore the matter may kindly be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) after condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue had vehemently
opposed the contention of the assessee and it was submitted that the delay
in filing the appeal should not be condoned. It was further submitted that
the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT appeal for
deciding the matters on merit. It was further submitted that the condonation
of delay should not be treated as a precedent in other matters, as the facts
of the present case are quite peculiar on account of the fact that the
assessee is going in VSV and also the order was passed by the assessing
officer under section 143(3) of the Act.
I.T.A No. 46 to 52 /Agra/2020 & Others. 7
5 We have heard and carefully considered the rival submissions put forth by both learned DR for Revenue and the learned AR of the assessee. A perusal of the impugned order confirms the fact that the CIT(A) assessee’s dismissed the appeal for delay in filing the appeal before the commissioner. It is seen that the appeal was filed before CIT(A) and there was delay of 30 days in lead matter .The period of delay in other matters are mentioned in the grounds of appeal (supra).
The assessee had shown the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the commissioner within the statutory period as provided by Act and therefore the order of the commissioner dismissing the condonation of delay application is without any merit .In fact it was incumbent upon the commissioner to examine the facts brought on by the assessee in support of not furnishing the appeal within the statutory period and pass reasoned order in this regard. The commissioner without doing the needful had dismissed the appeal is preferred by the assessee merely relying upon some judicial pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is a settled proposition of law that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncement is required to follow on the basis of the ratio laid down in the said judgements in the facts of those cases decided by the
I.T.A No. 46 to52 /Agra/2020& Others. 8
court and should not be followed as a statute without looking into the facts of the case. Taking into account the facts of the matter and in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to concur with this plea of assessee, as it is highly unlikely that the assessee would intentionally or deliberately not prefer the appeal before the CIT(A); as this would cause immense harm to his own interests. Admittedly, the assessee’s appeal has not been disposed of by adjudication on merits of the issues raised before the CIT(A). Further as mentioned hereinabove the assessee had gone in VSVA in regard to which were in I.T.A No. 73 to 79/Agra/2020 and ITA 80 TO 85 therefore on account of these peculiar facts we are condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner appeal.
In respect of the other appeals as mentioned during the course of argument by the assessee as well as by the revenue that the order under section 143 (3)was passed by the assessing officer. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is before the Commissioner appeal is required to be condoned.
In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of substantial justice will be well served if the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the aforesaid impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh
I.T.A No. 46 to 52 /Agra/2020 & Others. 9
hearings, examination and adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee in the appeal before him. Needless to add, the CIT(A) shall
afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details/submissions required, which shall be duly considered before deciding the issues. The assessee is also directed to comply with and
attend the hearings before the CIT(A). We will make it clear that we have
passed the order in the present appeal on account of peculiar facts as mentioned hereinabove and the decision in these appeal shall not be treated as precedent in any other matters .We hold and direct accordingly.
Consequently all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03 /02/2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 03/02/2021 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT Sr. PRIVATE SECRETARY