AN DENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7451/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 October 2020AY 2016-20176 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 47 days was due to the unprofessional conduct of the assessee's earlier counsel and the time taken to engage a new one. The Tribunal condoned the delay, setting aside the orders of the authorities below.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order making an addition of Rs. 43,70,000/- under Section 69A for unexplained bank deposits. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 47 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The issue of unexplained bank deposits was not decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC-2” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 06.10.2020Pronounced: 06.10.2020

ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, Dated 10.07.2019, for the A.Y. 2016-2017. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the Orders of the authorities below.

2 ITA.No.7451/Del./2019 M/s. An Dent India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

3.

In this case the A.O. passed the ex-parte assessment order Dated 24.12.2018 making an addition of Rs.43,70,000/- under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961, on account of unexplained deposit in the Bank Account. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that appeal is delayed by 47 days. The assessee company filed an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Tandon i.e., Director of the Assessee-Company which is reproduced in the impugned order explaining therein that after receipt of notice under section 143(2) the assessee relied upon the Counsel engaged, but, due to unprofessional conduct of the Counsel, the assessee company did not represent before A.O, which resulted into ex-parte assessment order. The assessee company after understanding the gravity of the issue and the unprofessional conduct of the Counsel, looked for another professional and thereafter engaged M/s. Tarun Subhash Arora & Company, C.A. to represent the case before the Ld. CIT(A). It is, therefore, explained that time has taken in changing the Counsel and engaging another Counsel. The 3 ITA.No.7451/Del./2019 M/s. An Dent India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that assessee failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal, therefore, the delay was not condoned and appeal of assessee was dismissed as time barred.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below.

5.

On the other hand, Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee was ex-parte before A.O. as well, therefore, delay was rightly not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the Orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that Director of the Assessee-Company filed an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) to explain the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal due to the misconduct of the earlier Counsel and time taken in engaging another Counsel for filing the appeal and to represent the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The contents of the affidavit have not been disputed by the Ld. CIT(A). These facts shows that assessee was entirely dependent upon the Counsel, but, did not act

4 ITA.No.7451/Del./2019 M/s. An Dent India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. on time, therefore, in engaging another Counsel time has been taken to engage another Counsel. Thus, assessee acted bonafidely without any negligence or inaction. It is well settled Law that delay could be condoned if there was sufficient cause for delay in submission of the appeal. In the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs., Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “while exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay for sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where delay is inordinate and a case where the delay of few days. The Court observed that whereas in the former consideration of prejudice to other side will be a relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach and in the later case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach.” In the present case the delay is of nominal 47 days which were due to negligence of the Counsel. Thus, the assessee has bonafide explanation and no prejudice is going

5 ITA.No.7451/Del./2019 M/s. An Dent India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. to be caused to the Revenue if appeal is decided on merits. Thus, by taking a pragmatic view and considering the circumstances as explained above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee on merits, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as A.O. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →