Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
[A]. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, New Delhi [in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year. The grounds of appeal are as under:- l. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (Appeals 19 ) New Delhi has erred upholding the additions made by the learned Assessing officer assessing the income of the assessee at Rs 6,59,53,300/- instead returned income of Rs. 2,28,35,229
The order of the assessing officer is not based on law and facts of the case and the Learned CIT (Appeals) 19 New Delhi has ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10)
erred in upholding the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer.
On facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT has erred in upholding an addition of Rs 288,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of interest free deposits.
On facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT has erred in upholding an addition of Rs 3,99,00,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of Share Application Money.
On facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT has erred in upholding an addition of Rs 29,30,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of unsecured Loans u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 1961.”
[B]. At the time of hearing before us, Revenue was represented by Sh.D.S.Rawat and the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of representation from the assessee’s side, we heard the Learned Departmental Representative [in short “Ld.DR”]. Ld.DR opposed the appeal filed by the assessee on grounds of limitation and also on merits. It was his view that the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed as time barred as the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit u/s 253(3) of the Act.
[C]. This appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit u/s 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find from the record that defect notice was issued to the assessee by Registry intimating that the appeal was time barred. We also find from the record that the ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) assessee has filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. In the aforesaid affidavit, Mr. Vinod Vij, Director of the assessee company has referred to problems faced by the assessee due to ill health of the Directors, ongoing various legal proceedings on the company due to financial defaults, changes in staff due to nonpayment of wages etc. We also find from the record that medical papers of Mr.Vinod Vij, Mrs. Preeti Vij [Wife of Mr. Vinod Vij] and death certificate of aforesaid Mrs. Preeti Vij have also been filed from the assessee’s side. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to dismiss the appeal on grounds of limitation and condone the delay in filing of this appeal. Accordingly, we admit the appeal having regard to section 253(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
[D]. On merits, Ld.DR relied on the order of Ld.CIT(A). Relevant portion from the order of Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-
2.1 “In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant filed an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A. A copy of the application u/r 46A was sent to the A.O. vide letter dated 31.8.12 for his comments. The A.O. has submitted a remand report dated 10.10.12 through the Addl. C.I.T. Range-17 vide her letter dated 10.10.12. 2.2 In the remand report, the A.O. and the Addl. CIT have observed as follows regarding the admissibility of additional evidence: Reasons are not there as to what prevented the assessee from filing the present evidence now instead of at time of Page | 3
ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) assessment. Sufficient opportunities given at time of assessment a detailed questionnaire issued on 24-08-2011 followed by notice u/s 142(1) dated 16-11-2011, letter dated 09-12-2011 and 14-12-2011, show cause notice dated 2012- 2011 and 23-12-2011 which goes to prove that there is no sufficient ground which prevented him for filing the details during the course of assessment and for which he has requested for admittance of additional grounds/evidences. Hence, the same may be rejected. Comments of the Addl. CIT:- In addition to what A.O. has stated above numerous case laws supports the above position namely Moser Baer, FairDeal Filaments Ltd.(2008) 302 ITR 0173 Gujrat wherein it has been stated that no person is entitled to seek admission of additional evidence as a matter of right. Sufficient opportunity were granted to the assessee in the present case. 2.3 In his rejoinder, the appellant has stated as follows regarding admission of additional evidence: In the above matter the appellant had furnished its reply earlier along with certain evidence which could not be furnished before the learned Assessing Officer. '-The Appellant also made a request for admission of this fresh evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Your Honour had called for a remand report from the learned Assessing officer who furnished the same vide his letter dated 10.10.2012. The learned assessing officer has firstly objected to admission of the fresh evidence under rule 46(A). The learned Assessing officer has however wrongly
ITA No:- - 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (Assessment Year: 20 ITA No:- - 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (Assessment Year: 20 ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) [D.1]. On merits, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order.
Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph [D] of this order. During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. After hearing the Ld. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A).
[D.2]. Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.
[E]. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of August, 2019.