KAMYAB TELEVISION(P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, ld CIT DR and S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, all the materials required for adjudication of the appeal were not produced, therefore, the ld CIT(A) has passed the order by giving part relief. It was his prayer that both the appeals of the assessee be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issues in the matter on merit emphasizing the need of providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

In reply, ld Sr. Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee and argued that the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 was not maintainable due to abnormal delay. Ld Sr DR also submitted that for the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee failed to furnish sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing appeal before the ld CIT(A) and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the same in limine.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is crystal clear that the delay of 886 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18 was not condoned, as no sufficient cause was shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While going through the material available on record, we find P a g e 3 | 6 & 537/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-1 & 2017-18 that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the cause of delay due to the fact that the notice was sent on email address only and there was no physical notice, for which, no explanation was furnished by the assessee for condoning the delay before the first appellate authority. In our considered opinion, such delay needs to be condoned, because the assessee was vigilant and was pursuing its legal rights in right earnest.

As regards to other appeal for the assessment year 2013-14, due to non-verification of income tax portal, the appeal order was not in the knowledge of the assessee. For this proposition, the assessee has filed affidavit. When technicality is pitted against substantial justice, technicalities are always step down and substantial justice should prevail. This being so, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.

We find that for the assessment year 2013-14, as the assessee has failed to produce books of account and bills & vouchers, ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 50% of the total claim made by the assessee in respect of provision of section 115JB of the Act and the addition under the head “other expenses”, the total claim was rejected. It was the submission of ld AR that the assessee can produce all the bills and vouchers if one more opportunity is granted.

In view of forgoing discussions, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer and direct him to re-adjudicate the issues on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500 and same is to be filed before the ld AO. In the event the cost is not paid, the orders passed by the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.