Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, MW Corp Private Limited, filed an appeal for assessment year 2013-14 against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against the assessment order. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 679,370 but the AO assessed the total income at Rs. 9,592,770, treating guarantee commission and interest income as income from other sources and disallowing certain expenses.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason provided by the managing director to be sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits because the assessee failed to appear on multiple occasions.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM
MW Corp. Private Limited, (the assessee/appellant) has filed appeal in ITA number 2129/M/2023 for assessment year 2013 – 14 against the appellate order passed by The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] wherein appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed under section 143 (3) of the act dated 25 March 2016 by The Income Tax Officer Ward (4 ) ( 2)( 4), Mumbai (the learned AO) is dismissed.
The learned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee for the reason that assessee was given a notice for hearing on
Assessee has raised many grounds of appeal on the issues in the appeal memo on the merits of the case.
4. As per facts available on record, assessee is engaged into the business of investing in financial activities filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 679,370/– on 29/9/2013. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143 (3) of the act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 9,592,770. The learned assessing officer has treated the guarantee commission income to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs as income from other sources instead of income from business and profession as claimed by the assessee. The AO has further treated the interest income of Rs. 806,981 as income from other sources as instead of income from business or profession because of the amount is received on short-term parking of funds in the fixed deposit receipt with banks. The AO has further disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 6,191,280 on account of finding that no business activity is carried on by the assessee.
Assessee is aggrieved with that appellate order and is in appeal before us. Appeal was found to be filed late by 20 days. In response to the notice by the registry, assessee filed an affidavit stating that order is passed on 20/3/2023 and the appeal should have been filed on or before 18/05/2023. The managing director of the company was required to sign the appeal. He was travelling from March 2023 to May 2023 outside Mumbai due to professional and personal reasons. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time, so it resulted into delay of 20 days. The affidavit says that the delay is not on account of any mala fide intention or assessee does not gain by filing the delayed appeal. Therefore, condonation petition filed by the assessee should be considered and delay may be condoned.
The learned authorized representative reiterated the facts stated in the application and affidavit of managing director.
The learned departmental representative objected to the petition and stated that delay may not be condoned.
On the merits, the learned CIT(A) has not decided the issue as assessee failed to appear before him on 5 different occasions, the learned CIT(A) noted that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal as it is not aggrieved with the assessment order. Naturally when on many occasions’ notices were given by the appellate authority and assessee does not remain present before him or make any submission, endeavour of appellate authority in providing justice to the assessee are defeated. In fact, it is also a proposition that the learned CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merits of the case. Therefore, as the first appellate authority has not decided the issue on the merits of the case, we restore the whole
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02. 2024.