NORTH INDIA WIRES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 1125/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 March 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJO SARMA (Judicial Member)6 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's original assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2013-14 was completed on 23.12.2015. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 by notice dated 05.04.2018 (after four years), leading to an addition of Rs.19 lacs for unsecured loans u/s 68. The assessee argued that the information regarding the loan was already disclosed during the original assessment, and the reopening was invalid. There was also a 244-day delay in filing the appeal, which the assessee sought to condone due to technical glitches with their registered email ID.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bonafide. On the legal issue, the Tribunal held that since the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and the information regarding the unsecured loan was already examined by the AO, and the reasons recorded for reopening did not demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 after four years was invalid, citing the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 244 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. 2. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148, after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and subsequent to a Section 143(3) assessment, was valid when the issue of unsecured loans was already examined during the original assessment and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

Sections Cited

147, 148, 143(3), 271(1)(c), 68, 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, AR

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikari, DR

Hearing: 27.01.2025Pronounced: 04.03.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 17.07.2023 for the AY 2013-14.

At the outset, we note that there is a delay in filing of appeal by 244 days. Explaining the delay, the Counsel of the assessee stated that the registered mail id of the assessee got corrupted and did not function properly and therefore the notices could not be accessed and complied with. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was only became known to the assessee when penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was received by the assessee. Thereafter the appeal was got prepared and filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 244 days. The ld. Counsel

The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not explained the reasons for delay to be sufficient and bonafide and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.

Having taken into account the affidavit filed by the assessee and reasons explained therein, we are of the view that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and the assessee can not be denied justice on the ground that the appeal being filed late due to technical glitches. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on legal issue as well as on merit. So far as the legal issue is concerned, the assessee has challenged the reopening u/s 147 of the Act and as far as merit of the case is concerned, the assessee assailed the order of ld. CIT(A) for sustaining the addition of Rs.19 lacs as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act.