SHRI JIGAR KISHOR MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
14.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in present law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.88,26,000/-being deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, th there was a delay of for the assessee ref submitted that delay that arose between and the assessee du regarding passing th the affidavit is reprod
Hence, the ap delay in filing
I respectfully beyond its con
I submit tha attended to a Rahul Khand relevant comp also duly repr
Ld. CIT(A).
Unfortunately
Authorized Re he was relieve
It is humbly s the CIT(A) abovemention time of perus
December.
Due to such p authorized re passed by th before the ITA counsel for ta
However, in before the Ho
IT he Ld. counsel for the assessee
130 days in filing the appeal. T ferred to affidavit filed by the y was mainly due to professio the authorized representative ue to which the assessee wa he order of the Ld. CIT(A). The duced as under:
ppellant is making this application for c g of appeal.
y submits that said delay has risen du ntrol, inadvertently and due to reasonabl at the said matter was being monitore and monitored by its Authorized Repre deria. He was assigned the responsibility pliances and advise the Company on th resented the assessee before the Ld. AO y, certain differences arose between me epresentative, CA Rahul Khanderia, beca ed of his professional duties.
submitted that I was unaware of the orde since the same was being monito ned counsel. I only came to know of the sing through the Income Tax Portal in professional differences that arose betwee epresentative and I being unaware of th he Ld. CIT(A), I was unable to file nece
AT, the appellant has subsequently appo aking necessary action for the same.
the meantime, the time limit for filing f on'ble ITAT has elapsed and hence this Jigar Kishor Mehta
2
TA No. 107/MUM/2025
e submitted that The Ld. counsel e assessee and onal differences of the assessee as not informed relevant part of condonation of ue to reasons e cause.
ed and being esentative, CA y to make the his matter. He as well as the and the said ause of which ers passed by ored by the e same, at the the month of en me and the he order being essary appeal ointed a fresh further appeal s petition and prayer for co beyond the co
I would like t was totally re
Therefore, thi allowed in th allowed caus favour of the a I humbly pra
Form 36 and the principle beyond my c
3. The Ld. Depa condoning the delay i
4. We have heard t material available on for condonation of consideration is whe occasioned on accou professional advice
“sufficient cause” wit
Act, 1963, read with 4.1 It is a well-se
“sufficient cause” sh advance the cause
Court in Collector, La
(SC) has enunciated
IT ondonation of delay, which has occurre ontrol of the Appellant Company.
to submit that I am not well versed with elying on external consultant for the same is application submitted for condonation e interest of justice and equity, and if th se of justice will suffer, as balance conve appellant.
ay before Your Honour to condone the d grant me an opportunity of being heard es of natural justice and as the control.
artmental Representative (DR in filing the appeal.
the rival submissions and carefu n record in relation to the assess f delay. The short issue t ether the delay in filing the unt of the assessee’s reliance and subsequent circumstanc thin the meaning of section 5 o the provisions of the Income-tax ettled principle of law that hould receive a liberal constru of substantial justice. The Ho and Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (198
d that when substantial justice
Jigar Kishor Mehta
3
TA No. 107/MUM/2025
d for reasons tax laws and e.
n of delay be he same is not enience lies in delay in filing d according to delay was R) objected for ully perused the see’s application hat arises for present appeal, e upon belated ces, constitutes of the Limitation x Act.
the expression uction, so as to on’ble Supreme
87) 167 ITR 471
e and technical considerations are in prevail, for no party perpetuation of injus
4.2 In the case befo differences with his a a copy of the order accessing the portal came to know of promptitude in filin furnished is consiste not disclose any elem the contrary, it man assessee.
4.3 In view of the fo prevented by suffici prescribed time. Acc appeal stands con adjudication on merit
5. We have heard the relevant materia concern of the asses company namely M/
which the assessee
IT n conflict, the cause of substant can be permitted to claim a ves tice merely by reason of a non-d ore us, the assessee has explaine authorised representative, he c of the learned CIT(A). At a la of the Income-tax Departmen the said order and thereaft ng the present appeal. The ent, duly supported by an affi ment of mala fides or culpable nifests bona fide conduct on oregoing, we are satisfied that th ient cause from filing the app cordingly, the delay of 130 da ndoned, and the appeal is ts.
rival submissions of the parti als on record. In the case, ssee has obtained loan from a /s Purvi Gems & Jewellery In e was having substantial sha
Jigar Kishor Mehta
4
TA No. 107/MUM/2025
tial justice must sted right in the deliberate delay.
ed that owing to ould not secure ater stage, upon nt, the assessee fter acted with explanation so davit, and does negligence. On the part of the he assessee was peal within the ays in filing the admitted for ies and perused the proprietary a private limited ndia Pvt. Ltd in areholding. The Assessing Officer h
Rs.88,26,000/- as de
Act, 1961 (in short
143(3) of the Act dat the assessee filed a books of account of t company and submit the accumulated prof
India Pvt. Ltd. We f direction to the asses is reproduced as und
“4.5. Thus fr legislature wa
Companies A interest of th against mus shareholders.
depends on t supra in the H
AO is directe the accumu view of the ab
5.1 Since assessee
Ld. CIT(A) and requ dividend to the exte direct the Assessin accumulated profit o advanced to the ass
IT has accordingly treated the eemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of ‘the Act’) in the assessment or ted 22.03.2016. Before us, the copy of ledger account of the the company and also filed annu tted that deemed dividend may fit of the company M/s Purvi Ge find that the Ld. CIT(A) also i ssing Officer. For ready referenc der:
rom the above, it is clear that the inten as the same when enacting the provision
Act as well as the Income Tax Act, be he minority shareholders must be safe scle, might and cartelization of the . However the calculation of deemed the quantum of accumulated profit as d
Honourable Bombay high court order. He ed to re-quantify the deemed dividend lated profit of the pvt limited comp bove the grounds of the appellant is dism is not aggrieved with the above uested for restricting the addit ent of accumulated profit of th ng Officer to take into con of the company on the date of t sessee and accordingly restrict
Jigar Kishor Mehta
5
TA No. 107/MUM/2025
said loan of f the Income-tax rder passed u/s Ld. counsel for assessee in the ual report of the be restricted to ems & Jewellery issued identical ce said direction nt of the ns of the eing that eguarded majority dividend discussed ence the d as per pany. In missed.”
direction of the tion for deemed he company, we nsideration the the peak of loan the addition to that extent. For read books of the company
5.2 In view of the ab purposes.
IT dy reference, ledger account of y is reproduced as under:
bove, the ground is partly allowe
Jigar Kishor Mehta
6
TA No. 107/MUM/2025
the assessee in ed for statistical

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

IT he appeal of the assessee is pa ced in the open Court on 22/0
/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Jigar Kishor Mehta
7
TA No. 107/MUM/2025
artly allowed for 09/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai