PEARL BIOFUEL P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 225/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2013-144 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to the delay in filing. The tribunal upheld this decision as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the reasons cited for the delay.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made significant additions to the assessee's income, including rejection of book results and additions under Sections 68 and 69B. The assessee challenged the penalty imposed for these additions but filed the appeal with a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned without sufficient documentary evidence. Whether the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) are valid when the primary appeal was dismissed on technical grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Ms. Mona Kakwana, CA
Hearing: 30/05/2023Pronounced: 30/05/2023

ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M:

The Appellant/Assessee herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.12.2022 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 23.03.2016 computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 12,48,13,710/- as against the income declared at Rs. “NIL” and made following disallowances:

a. Rejection of book results Rs. 58,17,955/- and Estimation of profit b. Addition u/s. 68 Rs. 4,40,00,000/- c. Addition u/s. 69B Rs. 7,49,95,752/- and consequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and vide penalty order dated 30.09.2016 imposed the penalty of Rs. 4,04,95,809/- @ of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs. 12,48,13,710/-.

3.

The assessee being aggrieved challenged the imposition of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner but with a delay of around four months in filing of appeal. The Ld. Commissioner, vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay mainly on the ground “that the assessee had filed a very general request for condonation of delay vide letter dated 10.12.2022. He has cited health issues of the director of the company for delay in filing the appeal. No documentary evidence whatsoever has been filed in support of his reply despite clear directions from this office. It has also not been specified whether the company has not complied with any other statutory obligation like filing of return of income, filing of return before the Registrar of Companies etc. in this period. It has also been mentioned that the director of the company is now suffering from cancer also. It is not clear as to how the unfortunate occurrence of disease at this point of time caused delay in filing of appeal in 2016. It is clear that reply of the Ld. AR of the appellant is totally unsubstantiated and cannot be treated as 'sufficient cause”.

4.

The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently supported the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner and claimed that order under challenge does not require any reference as the same does not suffer from any perversity, illegality and/or proprietary, whereas the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted a certificate whereby it reflects that the assessee is having various health issues since 2016 for that he is undergoing treatment. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances specific to the health issues of the director of the Assessee company, for the just decision of case and for the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant/Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th day of May, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →