ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Facts of the case in ITA No.1148/PUN/2024 are that assessee is a company engaged in the business as manufacturer of particle Boards which are made from Bagasse (dry waste from sugar factory).

Similarly, ld. AO also levied penalty of Rs.1,71,33,560/- on the various loans received by it through modes other than mode specified u/s.269SS of the Act invoking the provisions of section 271D. Ld. AO also levied penalty of Rs.1,75,10,751/- on the ground that the assessee repaid loans/deposits to various parties through modes other than the modes specified u/s.269T of the Act.

Dissatisfied assessee contested the penalty orders before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 775, 366, 363 and 979 days. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the notices of hearing were sent on email id of the consultant who failed to pursue the case. It is also a fact that the company suffered huge losses and was under acute financial crunch and its management was under pressure to improve its operations. The assessee enclosed its financial statements to indicate the company’s position. It was also submitted that staff from the accounts department left the job due to delay in payment of salary etc. Assessee relied on various decisions for condonation

Facts in brief in respect of ITA No.1151/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 are that the assessee filed the return declaring loss. The case selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) determining total income of assessee at Rs.5.43 crore. Assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with delay of 979 days who dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay.

Now the assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned orders.

We have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. It is as admitted position that all the appeals before us have been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) in limine by not condoning the delay and During the course of present hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that assessee could not represent its case in the penalty appeals for A.Y. 2017-18 as well as quantum appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 before the authorities for the reasons submitted before the authorities about its company’s financial position and non- pursuing of the appeals by the tax consultant. However, the submissions were brushed-aside by the ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals without dealing on merits of the issues, thereby

On the ground of delay, we would like to quote the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC . In the said Judgment, their Lordships have given certain principles based on which, the issue with regard to the delay can be approached and the said portion of the order of the Judgment cited supra is reproduced hereunder:

Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.

It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.

गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,