Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 20.2.2017 for Assessment year 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal
read as under :-
1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred as Hon. CIT (A)) has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appeal stating that the appeal was not filed in time and the delay in filing appeal is not condoned. It is submitted that the application for condonation for delay in filing appeal was filed at the time of filing the appeal was not accepted by the Hon. CIT (A). It is submitted that the Hon. CIT (A) has not considered the reasons for delay in filing appeal. It is therefore prayed to your honour to consider such delay in filing appeal and necessary direction shall be given in this regard.
2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer in reducing WIP on account of proportionate disallowance of interest expense of Rs.75,61,838/-capitalised to WIP mainly incurred on account of Secured Loans on the pretext that interest free Loans and Advances has been extended from Secured Loans by the appellant. It is submitted that such proportionate interest disallowance worked out by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax
2 M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (Appeal) should be deleted and necessary direction should be given in this regard. 3. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that there was a delay of about 13 months by the assessee in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A). The assessee has stated as under before learned CIT(A) as the reasonable cause for the delay. "It is submitted that we are in receipt or the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith notice of demand on 28.03.2014, the appeal against such order was require to be filed within 30 days of service of notice i.e. 26.04.2014. However, the concern accountant had kept the impugned order at an improper place, who later on had left the Appellant organization in the month of April, 2014 without handing over the impugned order due to which the Appellant was not aware of such order, resulting into appeal remained to be filed at our end.”
Learned CIT(A) was not convinced. He held as under : “I have considered the submission. The appellant in the condonation application has simply mentioned that the concerned accountant has kept the impugned order at an improper place and left the organization in April 2014 without handing over the impugned order to the appellant. The submission is devoid of any evidence. The case of the appellant is duly represented by the Authorised Representative. I am unable to accept the fact that the appellant is unaware of the fact for almost thirteen months that the assessment order is passed by the A.O. It is not clear as to how the appellant finally received the order, since the accountant has not handed over the same to the appellant. Therefore the submission of the appellant does not look plausible and substantial delay of around 13 months m filing the appeal is not accepted and delay in filing the appeal is not condoned.”
Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We note that learned CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay by wondering how the assessee come to know about the Assessing Officer’s order when the concerned employee has left the organization. It is not appearing from the learned CIT(A)’s order as to whether this question was even put to the assessee from explanation. Hence, prima facie learned CIT(A) has not granted adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain his query. Hence, in the interest of justice we remit this issue to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned
3 M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue of condonation of delay after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Thereafter he should decide the issue as per law.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on 24.5.2021.