ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 2462/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 March 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause due to the severe illness and death of the assessee company's director's mother, who was also a director, and for which an affidavit was filed. The Tribunal found cogency in the assessee's argument that the AO had not provided sufficient opportunity to present its case. The assessee had submitted a reply on 12.03.2015 and requested more time, which was not granted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the reply, documents, and evidence submitted by the assessee and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Revenue's DR had no objection to this course of action. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Access India Impex Centre Pvt Ltd, engaged in maintenance services, filed its return for AY 2012-13 declaring Rs. 12,55,500. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed total income at Rs. 69,26,438, adding Rs. 17,70,679 for computer expenses, lease rent to Shimla, and editor's expenses, and Rs. 14,30,259 for outstanding provisions. Additionally, Rs. 24,70,000 deposited in the bank was treated as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed 412 days late. The assessee's AR cited the severe illness and subsequent death of a director's mother, who was also a director, as the reason for the delay, supported by an affidavit. The assessee also contended that the AO did not provide sufficient opportunity to present its case. The Revenue's DR did not object to the remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condonable on the grounds of reasonable cause, as per Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to the severe illness and subsequent death of the mother of a director, who was also a director, requiring the family's full attention. An affidavit was filed in support. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer to present its case, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication. - Assessee's contention: The AO did not provide sufficient time to file a complete reply and present evidence, despite a request for more time on 12.03.2015. The CIT(A) had noted this in its order. - Revenue's contention: The Ld. DR had no objection to the matter being sent back to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA,

Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 05.05.2025

ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of providing maintenance services to the office owners in the Naurang House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Return of income was e-filed on 02.02.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 12,55,500/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was made on 27.03.2015 determining total income at Rs. 69,26,438/-.

In the assessment order, AO added Rs. 17,70,679/- on account of computer expenses, lease rent to Shimla and editor’s expenses. AO also added Rs. 14,30,259/- on account of outstanding provisions. During the year assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 24,70,000/- in its bank account, the same was treated as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.

At the threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 412 days. In this regard, Ld. AR has submitted that delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is due to illness of Director’s mother of the assessee company, who was also the Director of the Company and was severally ill and suffering from Dementia and she was bedridden over 2 years, as a result, all the Directors, being immediate family members, were fully engaged in providing care and support to her and unfortunately she died on 20.10.2018. In support of this contention, Shri Sarabjeet Singh Sabharwal, S/o Shri Inderjit Singh Sabharwal Director of the Assessee company filed his affidavit, which is placed on record. Ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. AR. Upon hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we find that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal, hence, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the appeal deserve to be condoned. We hold and direct accordingly.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that AO has not provided sufficient opportunity to canvass the case before him. In this regard, he reiterated his contention again which he submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has duly recorded the said contention of the assessee in his order at page no. 7 vide para no. 3 (without number), which reads as under:- “During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that it had submitted reply to the AO on 12.03.2015 and requested some more time for filing on the remaining matters. However, AO did not provided time to the appellant…..” 2 | P a g e 4.1 In view of above, it was requested to send back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after considering the reply, documents and evidences submitted by the assessee by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we find considerable cogency in the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR for the assessee, therefore, in our considered view interest of justice will be served, if the issues are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also consider the reply etc. submitted by the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →