UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS (CWG CELL),DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-36, DELHI

This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 19.11.2018, for assessment year 2008-09.

The appeal is time barred by 2059 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee/appellant explaining the reason for delay in filing of present appeal submitted that the CIT(A) vide impugned order had decided appeal of the (AY 2009-10) assessee for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 vide single order, the assessee was under a bonafide impression that since appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 a single appeal is required to be filed for both assessment years. Accordingly, the assessee filed common for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. When the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal, the Bench ppointed that single appeal cannot be filed for two assessment years. Accordingly, the assessee filed two separate appeals for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10. The original appeal was filed within the period of limitation. It was only the appeals filed consequent to the defect pointed by the Bench, separate appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 were filed. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has also filed application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal citing aforesaid reasons causing delay. After perusal of the same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the reasons for delay stated in application appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 2059 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

During the course of hearing a specific query was raised by the Bench on locus of Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports (CWG Cell) Delhi to the present appeal. The ld. Counsel explained that Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 (a Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860) was setup with the main object to prepare, organize and conduct Commonwealth Games, 2010 in Delhi. Since, the main object for which said society was framed was fulfilled, the said committee was wouned up on 07.08.2017 and all its assets and liabilities were transferred to the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of India vide OM F.No.70-210/2016-SPVI dated 21.08.2017. Thus, w.e.f 08.08.2017 (AY 2009-10) Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of India, New Delhi has stepped into the shoes of Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010, New Delhi and all residual work relating to Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 are handled by the Department of Sports (Common Wealth Games, Delhi, 2010 Cell). In peculiar facts explained by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, locus of the Department of Sports (CWG Cell), Union of India is accepted.

Shri Neeraj Chaudhary, appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the name of a non existing entity. He pointed that during First Appellate proceedings, the fact of Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 being wound up w.e.f. 07.08.2017 was informed vide letter dated 14.09.2017. He placed on record copy of said letter. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the CIT(A) has placed heavy reliance on unaudit report of CAG and Performance Audit Report without appreciating that such reports are subject to Parliament Scrutiny and are not conclusive or binding in Income Tax proceedings. He further pointed that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. He thus, prayed for an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A) and furnish relevant documents in support of submissions.

Shri Om Prakash, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) in a detailed order has confirmed the additions made by AO. However, the ld. DR raised no serious objection in remitting the appeal back to the CIT(A) to consider relevant documents in support of the contentions raised by the assessee/appellant.

The CIT(A) shall also considered additional evidences, if any filed by the appellant during the course of submissions and may seek remand report on the same.