SHRI GARGI BUILDCON PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(2), JAIPUR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 77 days in filing the appeal due to the impugned order not coming to the company's knowledge timely, as it was sent to an old email id and the assigned employee failed to check it. The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the delay, which was supported by a Supreme Court decision.
Held
The Bench condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's explanation and the supporting affidavit. It was noted that the appeal pertains to a penalty order, and the quantum addition appeal is pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Bench decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal based on the quantum appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.992/JP/2024
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.992/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s.Shri Gargi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. cuke The ITO Vs. C-9, Barwara House Colony, Ajmer Road Ward 2 (2) Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMCS 8430 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 05/09/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 07-03-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 wherein the solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench noted that there is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal for which the Director company submitted an
2 ITA NO. 992/JP/2024 M/S. SHRI GARGI BUILDCON PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR application dated 16-08-2024 for condonation condonation praying therein that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was sent on the e-mail id: accounts@shreenatharcade.com and the responsibility to check and manage the same was assigned to Shri Neeraj Sharma, one of the employees of group, but he could not check the same timely as well as on income tax portal too. Thus the same could not come to the knowledge of the company. As and when it had come to the knowledge of this employee i.e. Shri Neeraj Sharma who informed the management of the company about this impugned order of the ld CIT(A). Thereafter the management approached the Counsel to prepare the appeal and submitted it on 22-07-2024 and thus the appeal got delayed. He submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the assessee or the counsel and submitted that the delay may be condoned for which he filed an affidavit. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem and fit proper in the case. 2.3 The Bench heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the affidavit of the assessee and found that there is a merit in the application of the assessee for condonaton of delay. Thus the delay is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji & Others (1987), 167 ITR 471.
3 ITA NO. 992/JP/2024 M/S. SHRI GARGI BUILDCON PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR 2.4 Further during the course of hearing of the appeal, it is noticed that the present appeal pertains to challenging the order of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 2.5 In this regard, it has been apprised at Bar by the ld. AR of the assesee that the appeal of the quantum addition is pending before the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication and the same fact has not been denied ld. DR , present in the Court. 2.6 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench feels it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) who will decide appeal of the assessee based on the quantum appeal. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes 3.0 In the result, the Appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2024. Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23 /09/2024 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- M/s. Shri Gargi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 992/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत
