DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3854/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 January 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation provided by the assessee to be well-explained. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not served notices in due course of events by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The issues on merits and law raised by the assessee were restored to the files of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) was directed to issue a fresh notice to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kamal Kumar Batra, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-1. This order arose from an appeal against an order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore. The appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 263 days, which the assessee attributed to a staff mistake, while the fee was paid on time. The assessee contended that they were not served notice of hearing by the lower appellate authority, preventing them from filing submissions and evidence to demonstrate that the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT was not applicable to their case, as the deducted amounts were not on account of ESI and EPF.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT is condonable, considering the explanation provided by the assessee. (Question of fact) 2. Whether the assessee was properly served notice of hearing by the CIT(A), and if not, what is the consequence. (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to a staff mistake and should be condoned as the fee was paid in due time. - The assessee was not served notice of hearing by the CIT(A), which prevented them from filing submissions and evidence to show that the amounts deducted were not on account of ESI and EPF, thereby distinguishing the case from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: C : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 09.05.2025

ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.10.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-1, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’, for short) in Appeal No.NFAC/2020-21/10214590 arising out of the appeal before it against the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR has pointed out that there is a delay in filing the appeal due to some mistake of staff though the fee of Rs. 10000/- was paid in due time. We find that the delay though of 263 days is well explained. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

3.

Further, the ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee was not served notice of hearing due to which the assessee was unable to file submissions and evidences showing that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 143 Taxmann.com 178 is not applicable as the amounts deducted were not on account of ESI and EPF.

4.

In any case, since the assessee was not served the notices in due course of events, we allow the appeal for statistical purposes and restore the issues on merits and law, if any, raised by the assessee to the files of ld. CIT(A) to issue a fresh notice and decide the appeal afresh.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →