PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE
Facts
The assessee filed appeals with a delay of 28 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to a significant delay of 932 and 931 days in filing before the first appellate authority. The assessee provided reasons for the delay, including the health of the employee responsible for filing and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days in filing the present appeals, considering the reasons provided were not willful. However, the Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing before the CIT(A) and the reasons cited for that delay were not convincing. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after imposing costs.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the first appellate authority is liable to be condoned due to the reasons provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 5 of the Limitation Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 AssessmentYears:2015-16 & 2016-17
Prestige Estates Projects Limited No.19, Prestige Falcon Tower Ashok Nagar DCIT Vs. Bangalore 560 025 Central Circle-1(1) Bangalore PAN NO :AABCP8096K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 O R D E R
PERSOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These two appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the orders of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore dated 25.3.2024 in respect of assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. These appeals are filed with a delay of 28 days before this Tribunal and the assessee also filed a petition for condonation of the said delay and they explained the reasons for delay that the person who has to look after the filing of appeals was suffering from spondylitis/Sciatica and therefore, he was advised to rest from 20.5.2024 to 20.6.2024 and also enclosed copy of medical certificate and prayed to condone the delay. 3. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay and the medical certificate furnished by the assessee and we are satisfied that the said delay of 28 days is not willful and hence, we
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 11 inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. 4. Now coming to the appeals, even though the assessee had raised several grounds on merits we have seen that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeals for the reason that there is a delay of 932 and 931 days in filing the appeals. The ld. CIT(A) had not discussed anything on merits but preferred to pass the order on the ground that the appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation and the reasons stated are also not convincing one to condone the said huge delay. We have also perused the affidavit filed by the assessee in support of the delay in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A), which is as under:
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 11
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 11
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 5 of 11
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 11
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 11
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 11
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 9 of 11
4.1 We have gone through the above submissions made by the assessee and we found that there is some force in the arguments made by the ld. A.R. that the delay is not made willfully. The ld CIT(A) had also not disputed the above said facts and in fact no discussion was made by him while passing the orders. Further, we have also gone through the assessment order and the grounds raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and satisfied ourselves that the issue has to be decided on merits. Even though the reason adduced by the assessee that the person who is looking after the filing of appeals, etc. Mr. Satish Chandrasekhar, Sr. Manager (Taxation) was completely engaged in other important works,we feel that the assessee being a big company and having support from other employees worked under him,could be vigilant in pursuing the important matters like filing the appeals in time. Moreover, the Covid 19 and the subsequent Suo Moto orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation would not help the assessee since the assessment order is dated 21.12.2018 & 22.12.2018.
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 11 4.2 On the other hand, we have to see what will be the consequencesif the delay is not condoned. In that circumstances the assessee will not have an effective opportunity to contest the issue on merits for no fault of the assessee company. Further great prejudice would be caused to the assessee on the other hand no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the delay has been condoned and the issue has been decided on merits.We are also keeping in mind that the dispute is under the fiscal statute and the state is not entitled to get their revenue illegally and without authority of law.Moreover the dispute is not between any private parties. The law requires that the authorities should make the assessment in accordance with law. By taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeals filed by the assessee by condoning the delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A) on terms. The assessee company being the assessee for long time they should be very careful in dealing with the assessment orders but in this case, they miserably failed to follow up the matter. 4.3 We therefore, of the opinion that this is a fit case to impose costs and we ordered accordingly by imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- for each year for condoning the above said delay and on such payment, the ld. CIT(A) is directed to take up the appeals on merit and decide the issue on merits, after hearing the assessee. We also made it clear that the above said cost should be paid into the account of Prime Minister’ National Relief Fund with in a period of 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order and the challan should be produced before the ld. CIT(A). If the assessee had not complied with the direction for payment of costs, the order of the ld CIT(A) would restore automatically without any reference to this Tribunal. With the above directions, we remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after hearing the assessee. Since we have remitted the issue to the file of ld.
ITA Nos.1249 & 1250/Bang/2024 Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 11 CIT(A), we are not adjudicating the other grounds raised by the assessee. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Aug, 2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Soundararajan K.) Accountant Member JudicialMember
Bangalore, Dated 28th Aug,2024. VG/SPS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
