MODERN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

The learned Authorized Representative submitted that assessee explained the reason of the delay before the learned CIT (A) stating that the Director of the assessee company was not well as well as the advisor of the assessee company did not properly advise the assessee. The medical certificate of doctor was also submitted. The certificate from the tax advisory was also submitted. Despite this, the learned CIT (A) did not condone the delay. He submitted that assessee is not getting any benefit by not submitting the appeals in time. It was further stated that delay should be condoned and pedantic approach should not be adopted. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of Land acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) of SCC (2) 387 and further, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2019) 112 taxman.com 134 (SC). He further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Aakash Lavlesh Leisure (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2019) 103 taxmann.com 248 (SC) has condoned the delay of 224 days in filing of the appeal on account of ailment of ex-chairman. Accordingly, he submitted that sufficient cause is shown by the assessee.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of renting of property. For A.Y. 2011-12, the return of income was filed on 25th November, 2011, at ₹44,87,993/- .During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13, it was found that the rental income have been bifurcated by the assessee as income from other sources and income from house property. Against income from house property, the assessee has claimed standard deduction u/s 24 (a) of The Act at the rate of 30%. Against the income from other sources, the assessee has claimed deductions of several expenses. Therefore, the return of income which was earlier not scrutinized was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Ultimately, the total income was considered as income from House Property and 30% deduction under Section 24 of the Act was granted and the assessment was framed at ₹74,91,240/- by assessment order under Section

Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A), which was delayed by 191 days. The reason of delay, it was explained is on account of health of the Director of the company supported by medical certificate and also ignorance of tax advisory, supported by certificate of tax advisor also. The learned CIT (A) considered it as not a ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of land acquisition V MSt katiji (supra) has laid down certain principles and also stated that a liberal approach in condoning the delay should be adopted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered and reiterated all these principles in the three decisions cited before us of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that the delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned by the learned CIT (A). We are also conscious of the fact that the assessee is unable to explain the complete delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, assessee is directed to pay ₹5,000/- as a cost for each of these three appeals to be deposited in ‘Prime Minister National Relief Fund’ within 30 days of the date of this order. Subject to the above, the delay in all these appeals, are condoned and matter is restored before the learned CIT (A) to decide all these three appeal in its merit. The assessee is further directed to furnish all the details before the learned CIT (A) on receipt of the notice of hearing. The learned CIT (A) after giving assessee an

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.