Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16 against the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :
1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore liable to be annulled.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that the assessee has not complied to the notices issued during appellate proceedings ITA 707/CHD/2023 A.Y.2015-16 2 despite the fact that the written submissions were duly filed during physical hearing in the office of Ld. CIT(A).
3. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law in holding that the income of Rs. 3,85,58,386/- being duty drawback, currency fluctuation gain and interest are not derived from eligible business and are thus not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act.
4. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law in holding that prior computing deduction u/s 80IC profits from eligible business are to be set-off against the losses under other heads as per the provisions of Sec. 70 of the Act and restricting the claim of deduction to Rs. 24,53,867/- as against the claim of the appellant of Rs. 1,78,00,851/-.
That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law in disallowing Interest on late deposit on Custom Duty of Rs. 18,013/- despite the settled legal propositions that the same being not in the nature of penalty, it is not covered by the provisions of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act.
That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case in upholding ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of travelling expenses despite the fact that the Ld. AO has not enumerated any specific incidence of personal use or non production of evidences.
On scrutiny, it is found that there is a delay of 72 days, as pointed out by the Registry, in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay occurred in filing the present appeal. The assessee has stated that all the notices issued by the Income Tax Department were served on email id umastrips@gmail.com , which pertained to the retired Partner Shri Vineet Gupta, who did not inform the assessee about service of any notice or orders from the Income Tax Department. It is contended that Shri Neeraj Mangla, C.A., the new Counsel, appointed by the ITA 707/CHD/2023 A.Y.2015-16 3 assessee, after verification of e-filing Portal, intimated the assessee about the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). It is further contended that due to differences between the partners and initiation of legal disputes etc., there was delay in filing the present appeal, by the assessee before the ITAT.
It is also submitted that there was no malafide intention for delaying the filing of appeal.
Heard. After taking into consideration the contents of the application and the affidavit of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Even otherwise, the assessee cannot be said to stand to gain anything by deliberately delaying the filing of the appeal before this Tribunal.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay of 72 days caused in filing the present appeal is condoned.
2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. It is further submitted that the written submissions were duly filed, but the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte only on the ITA 707/CHD/2023 A.Y.2015-16 4 basis of alleged non-compliance of notices.
3. The ld. Sr.DR has relied on the impugned order.
We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 04.09.2024.