CATTLEYA PROJECTS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay.

The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the delay occurred in filing of the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It is submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm which had discontinued its business operations from Assessment Year 2019-20 onwards. Due to discontinuation of business activities, the partners were no longer actively involved in the affairs of the firm, and the tax matters were not being regularly monitored. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC.

On the contrary, the learned DR opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of 33 days. It was contended that discontinuation of business cannot justify non-monitoring of tax matters. Therefore, the delay

We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filed the present petition seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons explained by the assessee for the delay are that the assessee-firm had discontinued its business operations from Assessment Year 2019-20 and, consequently, the partners were no longer actively involved in the affairs of the firm. Due to such circumstances, the assessee could not properly monitor the proceedings and remained unaware of the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A). Immediately upon coming to know of the fact about having passed the order by the ld. CIT-A, the assessee approached the Authorised Representative and took prompt steps for filing the present appeal. After considering the submissions of the assessee and having regard to the reasons stated in the condonation petition, we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. We find that the delay is not due to any mala fide intention or deliberate negligence on the part of the assessee. In our considered opinion, if the delay is not condoned, the assessee would be deprived of an opportunity of hearing on merits. Further we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), has held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee along with the form 35 filed statement of facts and grounds of appeal challenging the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act and assessment framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s grounds on validity of the proceeding’s u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act.

On the merit, the learned CIT(A) found that the assessee was given 4 opportunities of being heard to make submission on the merit of the addition made on account of unexplained investment. But the assessee failed to make response. Hence learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s ground on merit also and confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,46,06,300/-.

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The learned AR before us filed paper book running from pages 1 to 50, comprising brief note on facts and argument against the addition made, application for admission of additional evidence and affidavit for delay in filing those documents. The learned AR before us requested to admit the additional evidence and remand back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh assessment as per law in the interest of justice as the assessee was unable to represent its case.

The learned DR on the other hand did not object if the issue is remand back to the file of the AO fresh adjudication as per law.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we note that the addition under section 69 of the Act has been made primarily on account of non- compliance by the assessee during assessment proceedings. We further note that even before the learned CIT(A), the assessee could not properly represent its case. At the same time, before us, the assessee has filed certain additional evidence and has sought one more opportunity to substantiate its claim on merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The learned AR submitted that the reasons for delay in filing the present appeal are identical to the reasons explained in the connected quantum appeal for the same assessment year. It was submitted that the delay was bona fide and unintentional and occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee.

After considering the submissions of the assessee and for the reasons recorded by us while condoning the delay in the connected quantum appeal in earlier para of this order, we in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The brief facts are that pursuant to the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and subsequently levied penalty vide separate penalty order dated 21st September 2022. The said penalty was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

We notice that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied with reference to the addition made in the assessment order, which itself has been set aside by us to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Once the very foundation on which the penalty has been

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.