M/S. CHADHA FINLEASE LTD.,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3731/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Chadha Finlease Ltd, Vs. ACIT, C/o. Compound Chadha Palance, Circle-3(1), Prince Road, Moradabad New Delhi PAN:AAACC5071C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 15/09/2017

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dated 08.05.2014 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the ld CIT(A) has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law erred in holding that the „Assessee‟ is not interested in perusing the appeal and erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. That the ld CIT(A) has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred in not appreciating the facts that in „Quantum‟ proceeding of the „Assessee‟ are pending in ITAT on the date on which order is passed. 3. That the ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that even on merits the penalty of Rs. 4065392/- imposed by the Assessing Officer is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the same. 4. The CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in not disposing off the appeal on merits. 5. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in not allowing a proper and a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.” 3. Assessee company was assessment under section 143 (3) was completed on 8/12/2009 wherein the company was assessed at Rs. 14942720/– as against the returned income of Rs. 2864910/–. During the course of assessment proceedings, a sum of Rs. 12077814/– was attended the unexplained liability under section 68 of the income tax act and therefore the penalty proceedings

Page 2 of 3 were initiated. The addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) and therefore the Ld. assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (C) of the income tax act, 1961. After considering the reply filed by the assessee. The Ld. AO levied penalty under section 271 (1) (C) amounting to Rs. 4 065392/–. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT (A). However, is the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT A, belatedly 19/10/2012 against the order received by the assessee on 03/04/2012. Furthermore, none appeared before the CIT A, despite several notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT A. Therefore, Ld. CIT appeal was of the view that the assessee is not interested in placing the appeal and hence, he dismissed the appeal. 5. The Ld. authorised representative submitted before us that the Ld. CIT appeal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution. He submitted that the CIT appeal shall exercise his powers as provided under section 251 of the income tax act only. 6. The Ld. departmental representative vehemently objected to the claim of the assessee and submitted that when the appeal of the assessee was delayed the Ld. CIT appeal did not have any other option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and also perused the orders of the lower authority. In the present case though the appeal of the assessee is delayed same was filed on 19/10/2012 for the order received on 03/04/2012. However, the Ld. CIT appeal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. On reading of the provisions of section 251 of the income tax act, we do not find that any such powers are vested with Ld. 1st appellate authority. However, we are also of the opinion that the assessee’s appeal is delayed substantially and admittedly no reference is made in the order of the Ld. CIT appeal about filing any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the interest of Justice we direct the assessee to prefer an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal within one month of the date of this order and Ld. CIT appeal is also directed to consider the application of the assessee on the merits of the case. If the delay is found by him for sufficient cause he may condone the delay and decide the issue on merit. If he doesn’t find the delay for sufficient cause he may not condone the delay and may not admit the appeal of the assessee. In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly.

Page 3 of 3 8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/09/2017. -Sd/- -Sd/- (I.C.SUDHIR) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 15 /09/2017 A K Keot Copy forwarded to