WINWIN INNFRA INDIA PVT LTD,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of marketing and selling real estate products like plots, flats etc. It filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30.11.2015 declaring total loss of Rs.86,243/-. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted by the department on 29.11.2016 during which evidences of cash sales and suppression of profit by the assessee in its business of commission income in lieu of sale receipts to the extent of Rs.1,10,75,908/- pertaining to assessment year 2015-16 were detected. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee through e-mail. The assessee did not file any return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, various notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act were also remained un-complied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 and made addition of Rs.22,15,181/- being profit out of the commission income.

Since there was delay in filing of the appeal by 135 days before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay. Further, due to repeated non- compliance to the statutory notices issued from his office, the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT reported in (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to the dispute between the two partners, the CA who was looking after the affairs of the assessee company left the company and therefore, there was a delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit. Further, due to the rift between the partners and the exit of the consultant there was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that as many as 6 opportunities were granted by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee never bothered to make its submissions but was seeking adjournment after adjournment. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find there was a delay of 135 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for which he did not condone the delay for want of sufficient cause. At the

So far as non-condonation of delay is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to the rift between the two partners and exit of the CA, there was delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details.

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay

We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 order dated 31.01.2025 has held that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal.

In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

After hearing both the sides, we find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.78,63,160/- being the profit @ 20% of the commission income of Rs.3,93,15,800/-. Since there was delay of 135 days in filing of the appeal and persistent non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. We find the grounds raised in the instant appeal are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1308/PUN/2026. We have already decided the issue and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. Following similar reasonings, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.7,50,946/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by not condoning the delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.7,50,946/- u/s 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.22,15,181/- which was made by him in the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Since there was delay in filing of the appeal by 804 days, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal. The request of the assessee that the matter should be kept in abeyance until completion of quantum proceedings was also rejected by him.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to delay of 804 days in filing of the above appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), he did not condone the delay for want of sufficient cause in filing of the appeal. In the quantum proceedings, we have already decided the issue and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with certain directions. Since the quantum appeal is restored to his file, therefore, we restore this penalty appeal also to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit after the quantum proceedings are decided. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

After hearing both the sides, we find the assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.