TANGERINE DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2411/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 June 2019AY 2009-105 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's affidavit and without deciding the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 5 months and 14 days in filing. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay with an affidavit, but the CIT(A) rejected it without deciding the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay without deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sapra, CA
Hearing: 04.06.2019Pronounced: 20.06.2019

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [A] - 9, New Delhi dated 29.02.2016 pertaining to A.Y 2009-10.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in law in rejecting the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him and thereby dismissing the appeal.

3.

The representatives of both the sides were heard at length.

4.

At the very outset, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 13.02.2018, which reads as under:

“It is submitted that the above mentioned appeal against order u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act was filed on 02/05/2016 and the same has been marked before B Bench of ITAT but is yet to be fixed for hearing. From the CIT(A) order and the grounds of appeal as raised before the Hon’ble ITAT, it would be observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by simply rejecting the application as filed before him for condonation of delay of 5 months and 14 days in filing the appeal which was duly supported by necessary Affidavit. In other words, the appeal has not been decided on merits of the case. It may also be relevant to point out here that though there is no demand raised in this matter on account of various disallowances of expenses as claimed due to substantial losses as available but penalty has been imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T.

Act by the AO against which the appeal as filed before CIT(A) is pending disposal. In view of the above, your honour is very kindly requested to issue directions for early future of hearing of the above quantum appeal as the same will humbly take a few minutes time for its disposal.”

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below as well as the application filed by the assessee. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal in spite of the fact that the assessee has filed necessary affidavit in support of his contentions and the appeal was not decided on merits of the case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee and after condoning the delay, to dispose off the appeal on merits. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.06.2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →