DYNAMIX INDIA DRILL CON CO.,NEW DELHI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 62(1) INCOME TAX CIVIC CENTER MINTO ROAD, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1771/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 November 2023AY 2018-19Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal decided on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the case on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the genuine medical grounds of their Authorized Representative, who suffered from renal failure.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on genuine medical grounds and in not deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 02/11/2023Pronounced: 02/11/2023

BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dynamix India Drill Con. Co. Assessing Officer G-4, 208/209, Sector- 16, Circle – 62 (1) Rohini, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Civic Centre, PAN No.AADF05426B Minto Road, Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 02/11/2023 ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26.07.2022 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal disregarding the extension order granted by the Hon'ble Courts for extension of the time limit as well as inhumanly turning a blind eye towards the genuine medical grounds of the CA/AR of the appellant.

2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not disposing off the appeal on merits, when all details necessary for the said purpose on record.

3.

On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating and by implication, not directing deletion of disallowance as made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect of employees' contribution to PF / ESI, invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. A perusal of the order of the NFAC show that the appeal of the assessee was filed beyond the limitation period before the CIT(A) and the delay was not condoned. We find from the form No.35 the assessee has specifically mentioned that both the kidneys of the authorized representative stopped functioning and because of the renal failure the appeal could not be filed on time yet the NFAC did not accept this as a reasonable and sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal. 4. We are of the considered view that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal should been decided on merits of the case, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 02.11.2023.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →