MGG INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SH. SANDEP GOSAIN & DR. M. L. MEENA
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 03/03/2023 in respect of the Assessment Year: 2017-18 challenging therein confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act amounting to ₹1,96,362/-.
2 ITA No. 728/JPR/2023 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment
application is received on record on the repeated dates of hearings.
However, considering the issue delay of 211 days in filing appeal and the
grounds of appeal being pertaining to natural justice, it is decided to hear
the ld. DR and adjudicate the appeal of the assessee based on material
available on the record.
From the appeal memo, it is evident that there was a delay of 211
days in filing the appeal by the appellant assessee. The assassee has
explained the reason for the delay that order of the ld CIT(A) could be
viewed only on 23.11.2023 hence delay if any is requested to be condone
with the support of affidavit which reads as under:
3 ITA No ITA No. 728/JPR/2023 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
AFFIDAVIT I Aakash Goyal son of Mukesh G Goyal Director of MGG Infra Projects Private Limited do solemnly affrm I Aakash Goyal son of Mukesh G Goyal Director of MGG Infra Projects Private Limited do solemnly affrm I Aakash Goyal son of Mukesh G Goyal Director of MGG Infra Projects Private Limited do solemnly affrm as under: (1) That number of grievance petitions were filed before AO/JCIT (1) That number of grievance petitions were filed before AO/JCIT (Range) for non receipt of refund (Range) for non receipt of refund for AY 2013-14. (2) That only during course of assessment proceedings for AY 2017 That only during course of assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18, it was intimated that said 18, it was intimated that said refund has since been adjusted to demands and balance paid to assessee. No break refund has since been adjusted to demands and balance paid to assessee. No break refund has since been adjusted to demands and balance paid to assessee. No break-up of such adjustments ever granted. granted. (3) On this refund an interest of On this refund an interest of Rs. 3,81,284/- u/sec. 244A was also granted but due to non u/sec. 244A was also granted but due to non intimation of this fact the same interest could not be shown as income for the year. fact the same interest could not be shown as income for the year. fact the same interest could not be shown as income for the year.
However on intimation by AO during assessment proceedings of AY 2017 However on intimation by AO during assessment proceedings of AY 2017-18 18 the assessee immediately filed revised computation on 02/09/2019 (e immediately filed revised computation on 02/09/2019 (e-filed) to AO (since system returns could filed) to AO (since system returns could not be revised) and thus assessee has shown his BONAFIDE BELIEF for such omission. not be revised) and thus assessee has shown his BONAFIDE BELIEF for such omission. not be revised) and thus assessee has shown his BONAFIDE BELIEF for such omission.
(4) Further the order u/sec. 250 of Income Tax Act Further the order u/sec. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03/03/2023 could be viewed only on 23/11/2023 hence delay if any is requested to could be viewed only on 23/11/2023 hence delay if any is requested to condone. Place: Ajmer Date: 24/11/2023 Verification
LAakash Goyal son of Mukesh G Goyal Director of MGG Infra Projects Private Limited do hereby verifies the abo LAakash Goyal son of Mukesh G Goyal Director of MGG Infra Projects Private Limited do hereby verifies the abo LAakash Goyal son of Mukesh G Goyal Director of MGG Infra Projects Private Limited do hereby verifies the above statement true to the best of my knowledge & belief. true to the best of my knowledge & belief.
Place: *jmer pate: 24/11/2023
MGG Infra MGG Infra
4 ITA No. 728/JPR/2023 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly objected to the condonation of long
delay of 211 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. He contended that
since, no cogent and satisfactory explanation had been furnished by the
assessee for inordinately long delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before
the Tribunal, and hence, the appeal is deserves to be dismissed on ground
of delay. In support, the DR referred to the judgement delivered by Hon’ble
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA in the case of Smt. Shakuntla
Thukral vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 99 taxmann.com 437
(Punjab & Haryana).
We have heard the learned DR, perused the appeal memo and
material on record. It is undisputed fact on record that there has been a
delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the appellant
assessee. The assessee has explained the reason for the delay that-
“The order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 03.03.2023 could be viewed on portal only on 23.11.2023; thus the delay in filing the appeal if any is “Bonafide”and assessee request to condone such delay if any considered.”
The question whether there is sufficient cause or not is primarily a
question of fact to be considered taking into account totality of events which
had taken place in a particular case. Where no cogent and satisfactory
5 ITA No. 728/JPR/2023 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO explanation had been furnished by the assessee for inordinately long delay
in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed on ground of delay.
Admittedly, the assessment order in the present case was passed on
18.09.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing income at Rs.
12,98,624/-. One of the addition amounting to Rs. 3,81,284/- was made on
the ground of under reporting of income earned in consequence of
misreporting of income u/s 270A(2) r.w.s.270A(8) of the Act, on account of
interest on Income Tax Refund. Penalty proceedings under section 271A of
the Act were initiated, and thus Penalty of Rs. 1,96,362/- was imposed
under section 271A of the Act on 28/01/2022 on account of under reporting
of income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of
Income-tax (Appeals) which was dismissed vide order dated 03/03/2023.
Thus, the appeal before the Tribunal was to be filed within a period of 60
days from the date of CIT(A) order. But the same was filed on 29/11/2023
with of delay of 211 days before the Tribunal. The explanation put forth by
the assessee was that the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 03.03.2023 could be
viewed on portal only on 23.11.2023 and thus the delay in filing the appeal
if any is “Bonafide” and assessee request to condone such delay if any
considered.
6 ITA No. 728/JPR/2023 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
In the case of Smt. Shakuntla Thukral vs. Commissioner of Income-
Tax (Supra) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA while
following its own judgement in VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2012 (Hansaflon
Plasto Chem. Ltd. v. State of Haryana) decided on July 5, 2012 [2012] 55
VST 361 (Punj. & Har.) considering the decisions of the hon'ble Supreme
Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial
Development Corpn. [2010] 5 SCC 459 and R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B.
Bhuvaneshwari [2009] 1 RCR (Civil) 892 had analyzed the broad principles
for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as
under (page 365 of 55 VST):
"From the above, it emerges that the law of limitation has been enacted which is based on public policy so as to prescribe time-limit for availing of legal remedy for redressal of the injury caused. The purpose behind enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. Under section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing of the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression 'sufficient cause' occurring in section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases.
The hon'ble apex court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R. B. Ramlingam's case (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating
7 ITA No. 728/JPR/2023 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that in spite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable."
In the present case, having examined the entire material and affidavit
filed on record by the assessee, we categorically record that the assessee
could not bring on record any evidence or reasons to demonstrate that it
was prevented by inevitable circumstances or there was a sufficient cause
for not filing the appeal in time which was late by 211 days.
In view the broad principles for condonation of delay under section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963 laid down by the Higher Judicial Forums, we
decline to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, in the interest of
justice, the limited issue of interest on refund amounting to Rs.3,81,284/-
u/s 244A is restored to AO to be decided as per law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms
indicated as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member
8 ITA No. 728/JPR/2023 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The ld. CIT (4) The ld. CIT(A) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T., Jaipur (6) Guard File By Order,
Asstt. Registrar
