EGIS INDIA CONSULTING ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 384/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing it without considering the merits. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as not maintainable due to a delay in filing. The CIT(A) had issued notices on the merits of the case before dismissing the appeal. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 43B for bonus payment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable due to delay without considering the merits and principles of natural justice. Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 43B was outside the scope of Section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 143(1),Section 250(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv, Shri Drona negi, Adv, Shri Devvrat Tiwari, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03/03/2025Pronounced: 03/03/2025

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. JCIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1058547026(1) dated 07.12.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, after issuing multiple hearing notices asking various questions on the merits of the case under section 250(4) of the Act, on the ground that there is delay in filling the appeal by the Appellant against the intimation order dated 27 December 2018 ('impugned intimation') passed by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore ('CPC').

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay in filing without providing an opportunity to the Appellant to explain the genuine reason and establish the sufficient cause of delay in filing of appeal. To this extent, the order passed is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal without giving any arguments on the merits of the case and in complete ignorance of detailed submissions and supporting evidence filed by the Appellant in response to the multiple hearing notices issued under section 250 of the Act. Strictly without prejudice to above, grounds of appeal

with respect to merits of the case are as under 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the additions/disallowances made in the impugned intimation without appreciating that the same is outside the scope and purview of section 143(1) of the Act Re: Disallowance of deduction of INR 4,63,15,569 claimed under Section 43B of the Act on account of alleged non-payment of bonus.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction of INR 4,63,15,569 under Section 43B of the Act ignoring the detailed submissions and supporting evidence filed by the Appellant clearly evidencing the payment/ Reversal of bonus made by the Appellant during the subject AY.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing engineering consulting services. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 30.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 18,85,74,380/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27.12.2018 determining total income of Rs. 25,23,97,927/- wherein, the additions/ disallowances were made on the following counts:- Page | 2 a. profit on sale of assets Rs. 2,36,216/- b. late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI Rs. 4,69,15,569 c. payment of bonus u/s 43B of the Act- Rs. 4,63,15,569/-

4.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld NFAC with a delay, which was not sought to be condoned by the ld JCIT(A). Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. We find that the assessee had filed a detailed delay condonation petition together with supporting affidavit, on perusal of which, we are convinced that assessee was indeed prevented from sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal in time before ld JCIT(A). Hence, in the interest of substantial justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file to the ld JCIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law qua the issues raised before the ld JCIT(A) in the original ground. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld JCIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments except due to bona fide and exceptional circumstances. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →