Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) DCIT, Build Tec Construction, Circle 1(1), O-11-9A, Second Floor, Vs. Gurgaon. Palam Vayapar Kendra, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon Haryana-122017. PAN-AAIFB6995K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 31.07.2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2012- 13/10231118 for AY 2013-14.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and has further erred in passing order which is bad in law and on facts.
2. That the reassessment of assessment u/ss 147 of the Act is invalid as no valid reason to believe was recorded u/s 148 of the Act by the Ld. AO before initiation of proceeding u/s 147 of the Act.
Build Tec Construction vs. DCIT 3. That the reassessment proceeding is bad in law as the reason to believe was not as per the law and it was mere a change of opinion which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
The issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction as the same was issued in contravention of provisions contained u/s 151A of the Act.
5. That the approval obtained u/s 151 of the Act for the initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act was mechanical in nature without proper application of mind which renders the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 of the Act invalid.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in not providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard before making finalizing the assessment order or appellate order.
The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in not making speaking orders which is bad in law.
The Ld. AO has erred in making the addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- without verify the fact that same is tax neutral and in-fact having double taxation.”
It was submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 342 days in filing appeal against the assessment order. It was the further submitted that the assessee could not participated in appellate before the ld. CIT(A) as the notices issued were not come to the knowledge of the assessee. Ld.AR requested that the delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may please be condoned for the reason that the assessee firm closed its operation in 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is the last assessment year when it carried out any commercial operations. Thereafter no staff was employed and when the reassessment order was received by one of the partner, it took Build Tec Construction vs. DCIT time to file the appeal. All these facts were stated in the petition filed before the ld.CIT(A) who ignored the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine and further decide the appeal without even refer the petition filed U/R 46A of the ITAT Rules in respect to the merits of the additions. Hence, it was his prayer that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the appeal may be sent back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the contention of the assessee was that though the order was received but they could not file the appeal in time due to closure of business and non-availability of staff. This is not the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Hence, he opposed the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is seen that assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter reassessment proceedings were initiated in in the year 2021 when the firm discontinued its business operations and there was no staff to look after its affairs. It is also natural that after closure of business, partners also did not pay full attention. In the first appeal there is a delay of only 342 day and the assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in our considered opinion in filing the appeal is a result of closure of business. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of Build Tec Construction vs. DCIT the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant. At the most for the inaction or a little negligence, the assessee can be burdened with the cost. But his right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. We condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the ld. CIT(A), who will decide the appeal of the assessee on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2025.