KTWO TECHNOGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 812 days in filing the present appeal. The records reveal that the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order dated 27.07.2023. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act on 17.10.2023. The said rectification application came to be dismissed by the

The issue that remains for our consideration pertains to the delay thereafter, i.e., the delay of 497 days from the date of dismissal of the rectification application till the filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that one of the directors of the assessee-company, who was primarily handling the taxation and litigation matters of the company, was suffering from serious health issues during the relevant period. In support of the said contention, the assessee has placed on record the medical certificate and other supporting documents. It was contended by the learned AR that on account of the

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. According to the learned DR, the assessee is a private limited company having more than one director and, therefore, the affairs relating to tax litigation could have been attended to by the other directors. It was thus contended that the assessee has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and, therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee had initially pursued the remedy of rectification before the learned CIT(A), which demonstrates its intention to contest the issues arising from the impugned order. We further note that the assessee has placed on record medical evidence explaining the circumstances which prevented the filing of the appeal within the prescribed time. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are of the view that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair- play, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit a sum of ₹10,000/- in the Prime Minister's

Coming to the merits of the case, we note that the addition of ₹3,08,00,913/- has been made by the authorities below under the provisions of section 68 of the Act on account of alleged failure of the assessee to substantiate the loan received from the director with necessary supporting evidence.

Before us, the learned AR drew our attention to the paper books filed by the assessee running from pages 1 to 61 and pages 1 to 33, containing various documents and evidences in support of the loan transaction received from the director. However, the learned AR fairly admitted that the aforesaid documents and evidences were not placed before the authorities below during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Accordingly, it was submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the evidences now placed on record.

The learned Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after considering the additional evidences furnished by the assessee.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the evidences now placed before us, we are of the view that the issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.