Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-3’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-3’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 2970/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 RAM AVTAR GUPTA & CO., VS. ITO, WARD 39(3), PROP. MANOHAR LAL, NEW DELHI 2116, BASTI PIPAL WALI, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI – 110 006 (PAN: AADPL8310K)
(ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by: SH. VED JAIN, CA Revenue by: SH. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR
ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated
09.12.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi relating to
Assessment Year 2006-07.
The grounds raised read as under:-
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the
learned CIT(A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order are bad both on facts and in law and liable to be quashed as the statutory
conditions and procedure prescribed under 'the statute have not been complied with.
3 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts.
(ii) On the facts-and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law 'in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order passed by the A.O. is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are vague and has been recorded without application of mind on the part of the A.O.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CfT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee by the AO, despite the fact that the assessee has been maintaining proper books of accounts as per law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition of an amount of RS.1,21,893/- on account of bogus purchases.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of the purchases of Rs. 6,09,463/-, without there being any basis for the same.
7.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming that the firm M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co. is not engaged in the actual business ignoring the fact that during the course of the search substantial inventory in respect of the material being purchased by the assessee were found which confirm the fact that this firm was doing actual business.
(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in rejecting that the inference drawn by the AO merely on the basis of a statement that these firms are not in actual business is baseless and contrary to the facts on record.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee in ignoring the fact that there being a complete tally of the quantity purchased and sold the allegation that the assessee has not made purchases cannot be sustained.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of the purchases rejecting the material and evidences brought on record by the assessee to show that the purchases were made in regular course of the business and material so purchased was sold in the regular course of business.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition so made on
the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee is bad in law & liable to be deleted.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition made by the learned AO is untenable in the eye of law having been made without providing opportunity to cross examine the person on the basis of whose statement the allegations have been made against the assessee and without following the principle of natural justice.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
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.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I find that
at the time of filing the Appeal before the Tribunal on 25.5.2016, 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 460
days.” In response to above said Defect Notice, Assessee’s AR has
filed a letter dated 27.5.2016 regarding removal of defect attaching
therewith a request for condonation of delay of 458 days which was
placed on record. On 9.11.2016 again the assessee’s AR filed another
application dated 9.11.2016 regarding removal of defect attaching
therewith a request of condonation of delay of 460 days. For the sake
of clarity, I am reproducing the contents of the Application for
condonation of delay as under:-
“1. The applicant has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the order dated 09.12'.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-20, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2006- 07 and the said appeal is late by 460 days.
The applicant is an individual and Proprietor of MIs A.B. Enterprises.
The assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 30.10.2006 declaring an income of Rs.2,37,100/-.
The return of the assessee was processed u/s143(1) on 20.08.2007 at returned income and the said case was taken up for scrutiny as per the guidelines of the board and the assessment was completed by the AO at an income of Rs.8,46,560/-.
Aggrieved by the same, the assessee decided to file an appeal before the CIT(A) against the said order. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's order
The assessee was provided the copy of the CIT (A) order which was handed over to one of the clerks working in the office of its CA to draft an appeal to be filed in the aforesaid case before the ITAT.
However, the clerk kept the above mentioned order in his drawer and forgot to file the appeal in the above mentioned case.
Later on, on the receipt of the penalty notice, when the assessee enquired from its CA regarding the status of the appeal to be filed before the ITAT, it came to light at that time that the clerk to whom the order was handed over has not filed the appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A).
Thereafter, the applicant immediately took necessary steps to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITA T.
That due to the unavoidable circumstances which have happened, there is a delay in filing of this appeal by 458 days.
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 humbly prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits.
For this act of kindness the applicant shall ever be grateful.
Prayed accordingly.”
After going through the contentions raised by the assessee in the
Application for Condonation of Delay of 460 days, I am of the
considered view that assessee has not given any plausible reasons for
condoning the huge delay of 460 days in the said Application. Assesse
has also not filed any evidence as per the averments made by the
assessee in the Application for condonation of delay. Therefore,
keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and
the contention raised by the assessee in the Application for
condonation of delay, which is not supported by any evidence, I am
unable to condone the huge delay of 460 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 04/01/2017. Sd/-
[H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 04/01/2017
“SRBHATNAGAR”