Timeless Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1533/DEL/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 153320114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAACT5048E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1533/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Timeless Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2019
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 22-03-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1533/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. TIMELESS INFOTECH PVT. LTD. C/O - C.S. ANAND & CO. 104 PANKAJ TOWER 10 L.S.C. SAVITA VIHAR DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-25(3) NEW DELHI PAN :AAACT5048E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 17/03/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-9 NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE ID. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL ON THE G ROUND THAT THE APPELLANT BY SHRI C.S. ANAND ADV. RESPONDENT BY MS. ASHIMA NEB SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 04.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.11.2019 2 ITA NO.1533/DEL/2016 APPELLANT HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED F IXING APPEAL FOR HEARING. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE ID CIT(A) HAD DENIED NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE ID CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF S. 13 88 370/- MADE BY THE ID A.O. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE ADDITION OF RS. 13 88 370/- IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE SOMEONE EL SE HAD FRAUDULENTLY EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF A PORTION OF LAND (OWNED BY THE APPELLANT) IN FAVOUR OF M/S SHREYA DE VELOPWELL PVT. LTD. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234 A WAS ILLEGAL. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B WAS ILLEGAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) EX PARTE QUA ASSESSEE WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. HE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE FORM NO. 35 I.E. THE FORM PRESCRIBED FOR FILING APP EAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) THE ADDRESS WAS MENTIONED AS C/O MAHESH MI TTAL (DIRECTOR) A-42 SURAJ MAL VIHAR DELHI -92 I.E. RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR WHO CEASED TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH EFFECT FROM 14/03/2014. HE SUBMITTED T HAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT ABOVE ADDRESS COULD NOT REACH TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ER ROR ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER IT WAS A MISTAKE O N THE PART OF THE THEN DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE COMPANY WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE FACT OF THE NON-COMPLIANCE UNTIL IT RECEIVED NOTICE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE 3 ITA NO.1533/DEL/2016 SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT OF CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE UN-AUTHORISED SALE TRANSACTION VIDE SALE DEED D ATED 23/12/2009 CARRIED BY SH. DINESH CHOUHAN COULD NOT BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE ACCORDINGLY SUB MITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A ) FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES. 3. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER THE SALE TRANSACTION FOR INCOME-TAX PURPOSE AND MADE NO COMPLIANCE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE US THAT D UE TO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR WHO DID NOT FOR WARD THE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPRESENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT D ECIDING ON MERIT. IN THE INTEREST OF THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE W E FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECID ING AFRESH WITH THE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IF ANY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. BOTH THE PARTIES I.E . THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE AFFORDED ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY 4 ITA NO.1533/DEL/2016 OF BEING HEARD. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ACCORDI NGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- SD/- (K.N. CHARY) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25 TH NOVEMBER 2019. RK/-(D.T.D.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI