SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
1
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. 661/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15
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)-4, Jaipur dated 24-01-2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 in the matter of Section 143(3) 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 making addition of Rs.6,61,088/- u/s 40(a)(ia) to the income of the assessee. . 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 entire addition of Rs.6,61,088/-.
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 of Rs.2,07,643/- under section 36(1)(va) to the income of the assessee. 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 entire addition of Rs.2,07,643/-
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 of Rs.52,100/- u/s 37(1) to the income of the assessee. 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 entire addition made by the AO’’
1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noted that there is delay of 2581 day in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed an application dated 27-03-2025 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,
Siyaram City Cab Ltd. (‘’Assessee Company’’) is in receipt of order dated 24-01-2018, for the captioned assessment year assed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 ("ITA") by th eld. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals)
3
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 assessee company, the assessee company 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 24-04-2025 with the delay of 2588 days.
In this regard below mentioned submissions for causing the delay in filing of appeal, may please be considered:-
1. Assessee company for the captioned assessment year was engaged in the business of Car rental services and was based out of Jaipur.
Shri Satish Chandra Katta, was the whole time director of the said company during the relevant year. Since the year 2010, entire business of the company had collapsed and did not revive thereafter.
Due to collapse of business of the assessee company, various cases have been instituted against the assessee company on account of default on payment of dues to various persons / institutions.
Due to the financial stree in the assessee company as well as the entire business of the assessee company towards standstill, entire finance and account team of the assessee company left the organization. As a result, assessee company could not track any of the pending litigation/ assessment having taken place against the assessee company under the provisions of ITA.
Due to the lack of support available to me and the various cases instituted against me, I inadvertently missed out, assessment order in the captioned case passed against me for the captioned assessment year
In the above legal and factual background, as the assessee company was not aware of the order being passed and the appeal could not be filed within stipulated time as per the provisions of law. However, it is submitted that the delay was not deliberate.
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.
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.
4
10. Reliance is placed on the recent judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO [2025] 343 CTR (SC) 39 wherein it was held that "both the tribunal and the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach By condoning the delay of 166 days and therefore, both the impugned orders are set aside by condoning the delay And Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law.
Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 wherein it was hold that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits' In paragraph 3 of the report it has been held as under:
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'ments' The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
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 pragmatic manner
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, 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.
5
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal..."
In view of the above, a very humble prayer is made for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before ITAT, Jaipur.
The assessee Shri Satish Chand Katta, has also filed an affidavit praying therein to condone the delay in filing the appeal who also deposed the reason for such delay.
2.2
On the other hand, the ld DR objected for such delay in filing the appeal by the assessee but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case.
2.3
The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that there is a merit in the submission of the assessee for late filing of appeal which is allowed.
3.1
As regards the main appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any reply before the AO in spite of sufficient opportunity and thus the AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act by making addition of Rs.9,20,831/- under following heads.
6
Rs.6,61,088/-
Under Section 36(1)(va)
Rs.2,07,643/-
Under Section 37
Rs. 52,100/-
2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 5 to 6 of his order as under:- ’’5…. It is clear from the above that the applicant was offered as many as 5 opportunities. However, no compliance or no submissions were made on these dates. The appeal is, therefore, decided on the basis of facts on record.
1.2 It has been enumerated above that as many as 5 opportunities were given to the appellant which have not been complied with or have filed adjournment letters with frivolous reasons. I am of the view that appellant is not interest in filing supporting details for the appeal filed and pursuing it further.
1.3 Further, perusal of statement of facts in Form 35 indicates that no details, evidences or explanation are filed to rebut the findings in the order of the AO. Thus, I am of the view that grounds raised by the appellant deserves to be rejected.
In the result, the appeal 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. 661/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत