FREQUENT STOCK AND SHARES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Motika Finance Ltd. & Frequent Stock and shares Private Limited 77 & 76/Ind/2025 & 79 & 80/Ind/2025 - AYs: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 .Y. Impugned order Original proceedings

Since these appeals involve identical/similar issues for adjudication, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this single order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity.

The registry has informed that there is a delay of 506 days in all three appeals filed by assessee “Motika Finance Limited” and delay of 324 / 140 days in the appeals filed by assessee “Frequent Stock and Shares Private Limited”. Ld. AR for assessees submitted that the assessees have filed respective applications for condonation of delays supported by affidavits on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR submitted that both of the Page 2 of 6

Ld. AR next submitted that the CIT(A) has merely upheld AO’s orders but the appeals of assessee require an apt adjudication in terms of section 250(6). Ld. AR went ahead to submit that the Assessing Officers have made high pitched additions on account of unexplained investments in shares, disallowance of losses, etc. whereas the relevant transactions were already recorded in the books of assessee-companies and no additions were warranted. Ld. AR submitted that these cases are quite meritorious and require a fair adjudication for proper taxation in terms of provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a prayer is made to remand these matters to lower authorities. Ld. AR proposed that the cases where the AO has Page 3 of 6

Ld. DR for revenue realising the fact that the assessee-companies are non-operational, did not object to condonation of delays in these appeals. He, however, requested that a suitable cost must be imposed upon assessee- companies. Ld. AR further proposed that since the issues are more or less identical in all appeals, it would be better to restore all these cases at the level of AO.

We have considered the explanation advanced by assessees in the solemnized affidavits and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeals as narrated above. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.

We, however, find merit in the proposal/submission made by Ld. DR for revenue for imposition of cost upon assessees and also to remand all these matters to the file of AO. Accordingly, we condone the delays and remand these matters to the file of AO subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each case to be paid by assessee to “Prime Minister National Relief Fund” and submission of proof by assessee to AO. Needless to mention that the AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.