BUL INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 15(1)(3), MUMBAI

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 10.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-55, Mumbai Delhi.

Facts in brief are that assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act was finalized on 19th December, 2018 by the AO. The AO had made addition on account of adjustment made as recommended by the TPO vide order dated 31st October, 2018 in respect of arm’s length price on account of adjustment towards sales and purchases made from associated enterprise to the amount of Rs.1,01,77,379/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Before us, the ld. Counsel filed an affidavit dated 9th August, 2024 stating that the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was to be filed by 18th February, 2018, however, the appeal was filed with a delay of 22 days because of inability of the previous legal consultant to file the appeal within the time limit before the ld.CIT(A). We consider that there is marginal delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) by 22 days. Therefore, we consider that there is a bona fide reason for delay in filing the appeal by 22 days before the ld.CIT(A) for the reason as discussed above in this order. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (SC). 1987(2) S.C.C. 107 dated 19th December, 1987 wherein it is held that : “The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.”