Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: October 18th, 2024 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2013-14 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 2, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16.04.2024 arising out of the rectification order framed u/s 154 of the Act dated 16.05.2015. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is a manufacturer of black tea having its own tea garden and factory. The assessee filed its return of income on 01.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs. at Rs. 38,74,130/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO')
I.T.A. No.: 1078/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. processed the return and made an addition of Rs. 1,68,31,155/- and assessed the income at Rs. 20,15,285/-. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground of delay as it has been filed after a delay of 2182 days. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges impugned order thereby submitting that ld. CIT(A) did not consider the reason submitted by the appellant with regard to the delay in filing of the appeal. It has been submitted that appellant was not aware of the intimation order passed against it by CPC online as no hard copy has been served to the appellant. It has further been argued that the facts that at the Income Tax Portal the e-mail and mobile number was mentioned of the Chartered Accountant of the appellant company Sh. Tapan Chandra Paul and appellant did not receive any message either through SMS or intimation from CA. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that as soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the appellant, appellant has filed the present appeal. According to him, there was no intentional negligence whereas it was bona fide that was beyond the control of the appellant, so the delay must be condoned by the ld. CIT(A). 1.3. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supports the impugned order thereby submitting that there was a long delay.
We have gone through the record and find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the reason given by the appellant appears to be non-reasonable and non-sufficient. There was no sufficient cause and reasonable cause had been submitted by the appellant. Now, the only question for a determination is that whether condonation petition of the assessee reveals sufficient cause for delay. 2.1. In this context, we have perused the several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969
Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 1078/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. SC 575], this Court reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13 Mad 269]:
... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant.
2.2. In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held:
It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.”
3. In the present case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit before us stating the grounds which according to him was reasonable and sufficient cause not to filing the appeal in time which are as follows:
“1. That I am one of the directors of Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. of N. S. Road, P.O. & P.S. Islampur, District - Uttar Dinajpur, Pin code - 733202 Page 3 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 1078/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. having PAN: AABCB9014B.
2. That the Income Tax Return of our Company for Assessment Year 2013- 14 was filed by our Chartered Accountant Sri Tapan Chandra Paul, Membership No.069033, electronically on 01.11.2013 for Rs.38,74,130/-.
That the e-mail I.D. of Sri Tapan Chandra Paul TAPAN_CHPAUL@YAHOO.COM and his Mobile Phone No. 9832080349 were registered by him against our PAN, at the Income Tax e-filing portal.
That our income tax return was processed u/s 143(1) for Rs.2,01,05,285/- by the Ld. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore against our returned income of Rs.38,74,130/- for which we had no knowledge.
That we had also no knowledge about the fact that our CA Sri Tapan Chandra Paul had tried to rectify the said order u/s 143(1) issued by CPC and we had also no knowledge that the said order was not rectified u/s 154 and the processed income of Rs.2,01,05,285/- u/s 143(1) was kept as it is as against our returned income of Rs.38,74,130/-.
That our CA Sri Tapan Chandra Paul did not inform us about any of the aforesaid matters and things, i.e. processing of our return at Rs.2,01,05,285/- by CPC u/s 143(1) by raising a demand of Rs.63,05,215/- or about the rejection of rectification thereof by CPC.
That no assessment u/s 143(3) was done by the Income Tax Department in our case for assessment Year 2013-14.
That we had not also received any manual communication from the Ld. AO CPC or from the Income Tax Department, Jalpaiguri regarding any demand lying outstanding against us.
That there was no outstanding demand showing against our PAN at the income-tax portal for any assessment year. It shows "No records of outstanding demand found".
That we came to know, for the first time, from the letter of the Ld. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Jalpaiguri, dated 13.12.2022 that there was an outstanding demand of Rs.61,63,980/-lying against us for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Ld. DCIT had asked us to pay the said demand within 10 days from the date of receipt of his said letter.
That as there was no outstanding demand showing against us at Income Tax Portal, we met with the Ld. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Jalpaiguri at his office at Jalpaiguri and requested him to drop the demand as there was no demand against us at the Income Tax Portal.
That the Ld. DCIT, Jalpaiguri had expressed his inability to do so and had advised us to file an appeal before the CIT(A) to get the appropriate
Page 4 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 1078/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. relief.” 3.1. Income tax return has also been filed for the AY 2013-14 that mentioned the e-mail address of his CA and also mentioned the mobile number of the CA, Sh. Tapan Chandra Paul. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the CA did not intimate him regarding the order passed. Hence, the delay was caused.
4. Keeping in view the hac decision as well as facts enumerated in the affidavit, we are in this view that by condoning the delay appellant should have been given an opportunity to place his case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned, order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside, case is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for hearing afresh.