Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 4739/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Gen X Commodities Pvt. Ltd., VS. DCIT, CC-14, FA-45, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027
(PAN: AAACA2303H)
(ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by: Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated
10.2.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi relating to
Assessment Year 2010-11.
The grounds raised read as under:-
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order
passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad, both in the eye of law
and on the facts.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.
CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in passing
the order exparte despite the fact that the assessee
was prevented from appearing because of the reasons
beyond the control of the assessee.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.
CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in
confirming the disallowances made by the AO, without
giving assessee a proper opportunity of being heard is
clear violation of principle of natural justice.
4(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.
CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in
confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs.
19,26,000/- invoking the provisions of Section 14A of
the Act.
(ii) That the above disallowance has been confirmed
despite the fact that no exempt income has been
earned during the year under consideration.
iii) That the addition has been confirmed in total
disregard to the various judicial pronouncements.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any
of the grounds of appeal.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed
by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake
of convenience.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has draw our attention towards the Application for condonation of delay of 513 days filed by the assessee and reiterated the contentions raised in the Application for condonation of delay and he requested that the delay of 513 days is not intentional and is bonafide and due to omission on the part of the Office Assistant, Mr. Ramesh Kumar of the assessee. In view of above, he requested that delay of 513 days may be condoned and the Assessee’s Appeal may be admitted and may be heard on merits.
On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee for condoning the huge delay of 513 days.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that this Appeal was filed on 06.09.2016 which was barred by 513 days. The Registry has issued the Defect Notice and raised the defect vide Serial No. 11 stating therein that “Appeal is prima facie time barred by 513 days.” In response to above said Defect Notice, Assessee’s AR has filed a letter dated 14.9.2016 regarding removal of defect for condonation of delay of 513 days which was placed on record. For the sake of clarity, we are reproducing the contents of the Application for condonation of delay as under:-
“Sub: - Request for condonation of delay
The applicant has filed an appeal before the
Hon’ble Tribunal against the order dated 10.2.2015
passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-
2. That the said order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A)
on 10.2.2015 and was received in the office of the
applicant on 11.2.2015 by its office Assistant, Mr.
Ramesh Kumar.
Thereafter, assessee received a notice u/s. 143(2)
of the Act on 16th August, 2016 for the AY 2014-15
and it came to notice that the office assistant to
whom the order for the AY 2010-11 was given kept
the above mentioned intimation in the drawer and
therefore no further action was taken.
Thereafter, the applicant immediately took steps to
file the appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT.
That due to this omission on the part of the Office
Assistant, Mr. Ramesh Kumar there is a delay in
filing this appeal by 513 days. 6. That as explained above it is humbly submitted
that the delay in filing the appeal was
unintentional and by reason beyond the control of
the applicant.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay in filing the
appeal be condoned and appeal be heard on merit.
For this act of kindness the applicant shall ever be
grateful.”
After going through the contentions raised by the assessee in the Application for Condonation of delay of 513 days, we are of the considered view that assessee has not given any plausible reasons for condoning the huge delay of 513 days in the said Application. Assessee has also not filed any evidence as per the averments made by the assessee in the Application for condonation of delay. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are unable to condone the huge delay of 513 days in filing the present Appeal. Hence, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed being time barred.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07/11/2017. Sd/- Sd/-
[L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 07/11/2017
“SRBHATNAGAR”