Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”). Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the different assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2021-22 respectively. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by following days:-
CIT(A)’s AO’s order Delay in Years order dated filing the dated appeal 1. 21/DDN/2025 2016-17 27.01.2024 26.12.2018 310 days 2. 22/DDN/2025 2017-18 30.01.2024 18.11.2019 310 days 3. 23/DDN/2025 2018-19 20.01.2024 06.02.2021 310 days 4. 24/DDN/2025 2021-22 27.01.2024 19.12.2022 310 days
The assessee had filed the petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit wherein it is stated that the assessee is seeking legal advice against the order of Ld.CIT(A) and during this process, the assessee has appointed Shri Saheb Anand, AR to prepare the appeals and filed the same. However, it is stated by Ld.AR, Shri Saheb Anand that he had fallen ill and therefore, could not attend to the office leading to the delay in filing the present appeals. It is thus prayed that delay in filing the appeals may please be condoned.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr DR for the Revenue objected to the condondation of delay.
Heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the application filed by the assessee, we find that there is sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 310 days [in captioned appeals] before the Tribunal. Thus, under these facts and circumstances of the case and also by respectfully following the judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC) wherein it is held that “it is a settled principle that mistake of counsel made in certain circumstances to be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of Ld. Counsel by itself is a sufficient ground”. Thus, the delay in filing the captioned appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard on merits.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in case of the assessee itself in for AY 2013-14 vide order dated 19.03.2025, the appeal of the assessee was Page | 2 dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi Benches. He further, submits that the assessee has already filed form No.8 u/s 158A of the Act. He thus, submits that the appeals may be decided in terms of the very same order.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supports the orders of the lower authorities.
Heard contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the identical issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in in para 9 of the order wherein it is observed by the Bench as under:- 9. “We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As submitted by the ld. AR on the same facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case had denied the claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act. Further, as submitted by the ld. AR against the above order of the Tribunal for AY 2010-11, the assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court vide of 2019, wherein, following substantial question of law has been admitted by an order dated 19.10.2020. "Shri Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent. Misc. applications (IA Nos. 9207/19 and 9954/19) with counter and rejoinder affidavits are taken on record. Urgency application (IA No. 10128 of 2020) stands disposed off. Heard learned counsels. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:-
"1. Whether the Ld. ITAT, committed a manifest error of fact and law in upholding the judgment and order dated 04.03.2015, passed by the Ld. CIT, Dehradun in so far as not appreciating that the twin tests of the order being of an erroneous nature and of its being prejudicial to the interests of Revenue were not satisfied? 2. Whether the Ld. ITAT, committed a manifest error of fact and law, in not appreciating that it was settled law that a Government Corporation, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 that if the words "by and under an Act" are proceeded by the word "established" u/s 10(26BBB) then the special categories of companies, including a Government company, would fall in the category of the word "establishment" and whether the said Government company would be eligible to the benefit of section 10(26BBB) or not? Hence, admit. So far as stay application is concerned, the plea of the assessee before the tribunal has been dismissed. Hence, there cannot be a stay of the said order. Therefore, the stay application (CLMA No.8059/19), being misconceived, is dismissed." 9.1. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal and in view of identical facts for the present Assessment Year also, the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(26BBB) is rejected by the AO is confirmed. Further, in view of Form No.8 declaration filed u/s 158A of the Act by the assessee, the assessee/the AO after receipt of the order of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the aforesaid of 2019 in assessee's own case may furnish suitable application in terms of section. 158A(5) of the Act and as per the procedure laid down in section 158A of the Act. In view of the above facts, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions.”
As the facts are similar and identical and also in all the Assessment Years, the assessee has filed Form No.8. Thus, in view of these facts, the captioned appeals of the assessee are hereby, Page | 4 dismissed with the similar directions as was given by the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.07.2025.