EVOLUTION GOLF PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6(3)(2), MUMBAI

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 05/12/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2010-11 on following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not A.Y. 2010-11 Evolution Golf Private Limited condoning a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal and consequently, not admitting the appeal. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 41 days and admitted the appeal.

1. The Assessing officer had erred in addition on account of amount received from share application and share premium even though providing all documentary evidences as given questionnaire. The Assessing Officer did not understand the share capital and share premium amount. As per audited balance sheet and details provide d during the time of assessment, share capital a mount received during the year is Rs 49,00,000 and share premium amount is Rs.56,76,250/- whereas in Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has entered share premium amount as Rs.68,63,750/- and share application Rs.37, 12,500/- Shares were issued at premium to Non-Resident only. Date of receipts, FIRC No. amount received in Foreign currency & equivalent IN R & reconciliation of amount received with value of shares issued have already submitted to the Assessing Officer.

2. The Assessing officer had erred in addition on account of amount received as unsecured loan. The amount of loan was received from shareholders as evident from audited balance sheet. 3.The Assessing officer had erred in disallowing the business expenses without appreciating the facts of the case.'”

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there was delay of 41 days in filling the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the appeal was dismissed without condoning the delay. The Ld.AR thus prayed for an opportunity to represent its case before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.1 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the statements of the assessee, relied on the orders passed by the authorities below.

We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us.

A.Y. 2010-11 Evolution Golf Private Limited 3. It is noted that, the assessee filed submission before the Ld.CIT(A) on 30/06/2023. However, formal petition seeking condonation of delay was not furnished before the Ld.CIT(A). It is noted that, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee directed to file application seeking condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) shall consider the delay having regard to the principle of natural justice and consider the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass detailed order by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2025