HARISAR BOARD PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD3(1), LUDHIANA

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

The Ld.ADIT (CPC) has erred in law and on facts of the case by arbitrarily and wrongly disallowing the Loss on sale of vehicle for Rs.399505/- and Interest on delayed TDS for Rs. 1300/- despite the fact that these items pertains to A.Y 2019-20 and were already disallowed in the return of income of A.Y 2019-20. 6. The assessee company craves permission to file/raise/amend/withdraw any other ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.34,55,280/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bengaluru, wherein certain additions/disallowances were made and the total income was determined at Rs.51,02,540/-.

Aggrieved by the said intimation, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 342 days. The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the delay occurred due to non-communication of the intimation on the portal and came to the knowledge of the assessee only upon receipt of recovery notice. It was contended that the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue before us is whether the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and whether the matter requires adjudication on merits.

1 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the delay deserves to be condoned. The explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be said to be wholly untenable, particularly in the context of faceless proceedings where issues of communication through the portal may arise.

2 At the same time, the delay of 342 days is substantial and reflects lack of due diligence. Therefore, while condoning the delay, it is considered appropriate to impose a reasonable cost. Accordingly, the delay is condoned subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- towards the treatment of a poor patient below poverty line under the care of Prof. Vijay G. Goni, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

3 The assessee shall furnish complete details of the beneficiary patient including name, Aadhaar Number and supporting documents establishing that the patient belongs to below poverty line category. The assessee shall also furnish proof of payment along with certification from the concerned hospital/department confirming utilisation of the amount for treatment.

4 The above compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order and proof thereof shall be furnished before the Assessing Officer.

5 Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer shall examine the issues afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6 The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the set aside proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

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

""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File