Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.513/Del./2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12)
ITA No.524/Del./2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ITA No.512/Del./2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7, S-25, FF, Green Park, Main Market, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 016.
(PAN : AAACS3405J) ITA No.511/Del./2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7, S-25, Green Park, Main Market, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 016.
(PAN : AADCS8973L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Kanika Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2022 Date of Order : 07.07.2022
ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
2 ITA Nos.511, 512, 513 & 524/Del./2020 These are appeals by the two assessees against the respective
orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals).
Since the appeals were heard together and have some common
features, they are being consolidated and disposed off by this common
order.
ITA NO.513/DEL/2020 3. The issues raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under :-
“1. The order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Act, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions under Section 68 of Rs.75,00,000/- to the total income of the Appellant.”
Brief facts of the case are that assessment was framed under
section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’)
vide order dated 29.12.2017. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer
(AO) disallowed additional depreciation claimed amounting to
Rs.75,00,000/- by holding the transaction to be not genuine.
Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee was not
interested in prosecution inasmuch as no compliance was being made to
the notices. Hence, ld. CIT (A) held that appellant was not interested in
prosecuting the appeal. He further noted that there is 267 days delay in
filing the appeal. Reasonable cause was submitted that company’s
concerned person dealing with Income-tax Department has left the
3 ITA Nos.511, 512, 513 & 524/Del./2020 service and papers were not properly arranged. Ld. CIT (A) did not
consider the merits of the submission only on the ground that a separate
condonation petition has not been filed. Hence he dismissed the appeal
holding that this appeal is not maintainable being barred by time
limitation.
Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the record.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee pleaded that there was genuine reason
for non-appearance before the ld. CIT (A) as assessee’s company is
virtually closed down; that ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal for non-
prosecution and at the same time rejected the plea of condonation only on
the technical ground that necessary petition was not filed despite the
reason being explained. She prayed that the matter may be remanded
back to ld. CIT (A) after condoning the delay and she also undertook to
cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A).
Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue did not dispute the proposition
as canvassed above.
Upon careful consideration, we note that the ld. CIT (A) has
dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and at the same time, held that
the delay was not to be condoned as proper application was not filed
though the reason was explained. In our considered opinion and in the
interest of justice, delay before ld. CIT (A) shall stand condoned and the
4 ITA Nos.511, 512, 513 & 524/Del./2020 matter needs to be remitted back to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the
issue afresh on merits after giving the assessee’s proper opportunity of
being heard. Ld. counsel of the assessee undertook that she will
cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A). We order
accordingly.
ITA NO.524.DEL/2020
This appeal by the assessee is with respect to penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
of the Act levied in connection with the above appeal of quantum. Ld.
CIT (A) in this appeal also held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed
for non-prosecution and further noted that there was delay of 89 days in
filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal also as time barred.
On the same reasoning as mentioned in the quantum appeal herein
above and also the fact that we have remitted the appeal to the file of ld.
CIT (A), we deem it appropriate to remit this issue also to the file of ld.
CIT (A). Delay before ld. CIT (A) shall stand condoned and ld. CIT (A)
shall decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing an appeal of being
heard to the assessee. Ld. counsel of the assessee undertook that she will
cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A). We order
accordingly.
5 ITA Nos.511, 512, 513 & 524/Del./2020 ITA NO.512/DEL/2020
This appeal by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) dated
27.11.2019 for AY 2011-12. The assessee has taken the following
grounds of appeal :-
“1. The reassessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) under section 147 r.w.s. 148/143(3) of the Act, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The notice under section 148 issued by Ld. AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions under section 68 of Rs.1,30,00,000/- to the total income of the Appellant.”
In this case, there was reopening and assessment was framed u/s
147 r.w.s. 148/143(3) of the Act. In the assessment order, AO made
addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- for non-genuine sale transaction. Upon
assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that the assessee is not interested in
prosecution. He held that assessee was not serious and therefore,
considered the case on merits also and confirmed the AO’s action by
basically reproducing the AO’ observation.
Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have
heard both the parties and perused the record.
Ld. counsel of the assessee contended that the assessee was facing
genuine hardship on account of closure of the business; that this led to the
non-appearance before the ld. CIT (A). She pleaded that the matter
6 ITA Nos.511, 512, 513 & 524/Del./2020 should be remanded back to ld. CIT (A) and an opportunity of being
heard should be granted to the assessee to canvass the appeal before the
ld. CIT (A). She promised that she will cooperate with the proceedings
before the ld. CIT (A).
Ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that ld. CIT (A) has also
considered the merits of the case, hence pleaded that the assessee’s appeal
should be dismissed.
Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case and the reasons submitted for non-appearance before the ld. CIT (A),
we find some cogency in the assessee’s submission and in the interest of
justice, we remit the appeal to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the issues
afresh by passing a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being
heard to the assessee. Ld. counsel of the assessee is also directed to
cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A).
ITA NO.511/DEL/2020 19. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT
(A) dated 27.11.2019 pertaining to AY 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-
“1. The reassessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) under section 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The notice under section 148 issued by Ld. AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
7 ITA Nos.511, 512, 513 & 524/Del./2020 3. The ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions under section 68 of Rs.75,00,000/- to the total income of the Appellant.”
In the assessment AO made addition of Rs.75,00,000/- holding the
transaction with M/s. RKG Finvest Ltd. to be not genuine. Upon
assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee was not interested in
prosecuting the appeal, hence he held that appeal is liable to be dismissed
for non-prosecution. Further, he also referred to merits of the case and
confirmed the AO’s order.
Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
We have heard both the parties and perused the record.
The plea of the ld. counsel of the assessee is similar to the one
canvassed in the other appeal above where she has prayed that there were
genuine reasons with relation to closure of the assessee’s business and
non-appearance before the ld. CIT (A). She pleaded that as in the above
cases, this issue may also be remanded to the file of ld. CIT (A) and an
opportunity may be granted to the assessee to canvass the case. She also
promised to cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A).
Ld. DR similarly submitted that ld. CIT (A) has decided the appeal
on merits also, hence assessee’s appeal should be dismissed.
Upon careful consideration, we find some cogency in the
assessee’s plea and since we have already remitted the above group
8 ITA Nos.511, 512, 513 & 524/Del./2020 appeals to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh and grant an opportunity
to the assessee in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand
this appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT (A) shall pass a speaking order
after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Ld. counsel of the
assessee undertook that she will cooperate with the proceedings before
the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for
statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of July, 2022.
Sd/- sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARD) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated the 7th day of July, 2022 TS