KAVITA GAMBHIR,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO, WARD - 2, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical thus, the same are decided by a common order for sake of convenience.

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by 206 days. For the condonation of delay, an application alongwith affidavit of the assessee is filed. In the said application, it is stated that assessee has opted for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme, 2020 (“DTVSVS”) and filed the necessary application. Assessee got the Form No. 3 from the ld. PCIT and had deposited the tax and also filed application before the ld. CIT(A) for withdrawal of appeals for both the assessment years. Due to oversight, the lessor amount of tax demanded was deposited so the application filed under VSVS was rejected by the ld. PCIT however, no intimation of the rejection was communicated to the assessee. When the assessee has received order u/s 154 from the office of the ld. CIT(A), assessee was come to know about the rejection of application filed under VSVS. In the meantime, on the request of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being withdrawn due to settlement in VSVS. For this reason the appeals for both the assessment years were filed delayed before the Tribunal. It is thus, requested that the delay be condoned as there was no malafide intention of the assessee for the delay. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC).

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the request of the assessee.

Heard both the parties. It is submitted from the perusal of the order that assessee has opted for VSVS however due to technical reasons it was not accepted by the department. Since the rejection of application under VSVS was not intimated to the assessee therefore, the delay had occurred. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 206 days for both the years which was occurred due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit ought not to be rejected. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling both the appeal is hereby, condoned and both the appeals of the assessee are admitted for adjudication on merits.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant cases, the assessee was engaged in the share trading business and total turnover exceeds the threshold limits is a Private Limited Company and for getting the accounts audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271B of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act for both the assessment years.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 3136 & 3137/Del/2026 for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively, are allowed for statistical purposes.