SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”A JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 572/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12
Siyaram City Cabs Ltd
Siyaram Street, Tonk Road
Durgapura, Jaipur- 302 018
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCS 1679 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 19/08/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26 /09/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.
CIT(A) dated 24-03-2023 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi
[ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 in the matter of Section 147/144 of the Act and thus raising therein following grounds of appeal.
‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. NFAC has erred in passing the order without affording effective and adequate opportunity to the assessee. The action of ld. NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of case. Relief may please be granted by 2
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the action of the Id. AO, in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being illegal and without juri iction.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in issuing notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without obtaining proper sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without juri iction.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in reopening the case of assessee company u/s 147 instead of making assessment u/s 153C, of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without juri iction.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in concluding the assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal, without any basis and contrary to principles of natural justice
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in addition amounting to Rs. 6,56,44,910 as bogus purchase and thereby making addition to said purchase u/s 68, to the income of the assessee company, of the Income 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in making addition amounting of Rs. 6,56,44,910 as bogus purchase, without discharging his onus of providing copy of the statements of persons and material relied upon by him The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the addition of Rs.6,56,44,910’’.
1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noted that there is delay of 680 day in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed an application dated 10-08-2024 for condonation of delay, giving therein following reasons. ‘’SUB: PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY U/S 253(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ("ITA")
Hon'ble Sir/Madam,
1, Satish Chand Katta, [Director), of the assessee company and that I am in receipt of order passed by the Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC") dated
24.01.2018, for the captioned assessment year passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA").
The said order was passed by Id. CIT(A) on 24.01.2018. Considering such date to be the date on which order was received by the me, I was required to file appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, on or before 24.03.2018, being within 60 days from the date of passing of the order. However, the present appeal has been filed by me on 10-04-2025 with the delay of 684 days.
In this regard below mentioned submissions, may please be considered:- -
1. Delay in Knowledge of the Order: Due to the extraordinary financial and operational difficulties faced by our company during the relevant period, we were not immediately aware of the passing of the Id. CIT(A) order dated 24.01.2018. Despite our best efforts,
4
2. Financial Slump: After 2010, the assessee company faced a severe financial slump, leading to a sharp decline in its revenue and cash flow. This downturn resulted in significant operational challenges, including an inability to meet financial obligations and maintain regular business activities. The financial instability not only affected daily operations but also hindered the company's ability to manage its compliance and legal matters, including the timely filing of appeals.
Departure of Key Employees: As a direct financial slump, several of our key employees who were responsible for managing our income tax matters and ensuring compliance, left the company. Their abrupt departure created a vacuum in our ability to handle the tax-related affairs of the company effectively. The lack of a proper handover and the sudden loss of expertise further compounded our challenges, making it impossible to respond to the filing of the appeal within the required timeframe.
Financial Crisis and Business Closure: During the FY 2016-17, our business operations both in India and abroad came to a complete halt due to the severe financial crisis. All our bank accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and our place of business was seized by the banks. This situation led to the complete breakdown of our business and made it impossible to manage regular financial and legal matters, including filing tax appeals.
Compliance Difficulties: In addition to the challenges, the company faced significant difficulties in adhering to statutory payment obligations, such as ESI and PF contributions for employees. The operational strain caused by these compliance issues further depleted our resources and capacity to manage other critical obligations, including tax-related matters.
Legal Challenges: Our financial difficulties were further aggravated by a series of legal challenges. Several cases, including those u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were filed against the company and its directors. The burden of these legal battles consumed significant time and resources, diverting our attention from other critical matters such as tax compliance. The overwhelming pressure from these legal issues left us unable to focus on filing the appeal within the required period.
Health Issues: That I suffered had suffered a heart attack and brain stroke due to the immense stress from the financial crisis and the associated legal battles. My health has been deteriorating over time, preventing me from actively managing the affairs of the company, including filing the necessary appeals on time. The compounded effects of these challenges left us with no option but to seek the Hon'ble Tribunal's indulgence in condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
5
9. That subsequently, I filed the appeal before the Hon'ble bench, resulting in a delay of 680 days in filing the appeal.
Delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor due to any negligence or mala fide intention on my part but was caused due to the reasons mentioned above, which were beyond my control
As per the provisions of Section 253(5) of the ITA, if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. It is submitted that the delay was not deliberate.
In view of above, it is humbly prayed that delay in filing of appeal may please be condoned. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471
"The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting S.5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the low in a meaningful manner which subserves the end of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts."
In view of above, a very humble prayer is made for condoning the delay.’’
As regards the main appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO as the assessee did not furnish any reply before the AO who passed the assessment order u/s 147/ 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.6,56,910/- treating the amount as bogus accommodation entries by paying cash out of unaccounted income of the assessee company and thus the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act.
3.2
In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 8 & 9 of his order as under:-
‘’8.0 In view of the discussion as above, and the fact of the case, it seems that the appellant has nothing to add in this matter, despite getting (06) opportunities. The appellant has only filed an appeal in Form No. 35. The appellant has not filed any written submission/ document with respect to the ground raised in Form 35. Therefore, as no interference is required, the impugned addition made by the AO is therefore, sustained.
0 In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.’’
3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. Addl. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing her case for which a cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course
8
Order pronounced in the open court on 26 /09/2024. ¼xxu Xkks;y ½
¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½
(Gagan Goyal)
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/09/2025
*Mishra
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- M/s. Siyaram City Cabs :Ltd, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 6)4), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 572/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत