Case Law Details
ITO Vs. Gisil Designs Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
In the present case, Ld. CIT(A) on admitting the additional evidences directed the AO to examine the case properly by calling the books of accounts and other details and file a Remand Report. However, despite giving several sufficient opportunities, the AO did not file the Remand Report before CIT(A). He did not examine books of account and other details. Therefore, AO has shown negligency in not filing the Remand Report before Ld. CIT(A). The same conduct of the AO continued even after passing of the impugned appellate order because the appellate order was kept pending without any action and no appeal has been filed by the Department within the period of limitation. It is simply stated in the application for condonation of delay that due to time barring assessment, the impugned order was overlooked and got barred by limitation. However, it is a fact that AO was aware that departmental appeal would be meritless. It is, therefore, clear that the AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by Ld. Pr. CIT to file the appeal have been granted after the period of limitation to file the appeal on 07.06.2016. Therefore, no sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the period of limitation. The application is not supported by any evidence. We, therefore, hold that the Revenue Department has failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause, therefore, the appeal of the Revenue shall have to be dismissed as time barred.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Revenue has been directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-15, Delhi dated 29.12.20 15 for AY 2007-08, challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.3,26,0 1,780/- in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (in short “Rules”).
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring a loss of Rs.3,26,01,780/-. The AO passed ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The AO noted that the assessee has not furnished any details, copies of Audited balance sheets and Audit reports etc. therefore, returned loss is not verifiable. Therefore, returned loss of Rs. 3,26,01,780/- was disallowed and the income was taken as NIL. The assessee moved an application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules in appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and also filed copies of the Audit Report and balance sheet. It was explained that due to acute financial constraints and staff shortage, the assessee was not able to conduct its normal business activities. Therefore, no notice has been received by the assessee. The assessee shall produce books of accounts as and when required to support returned loss. The assessee, therefore, sought that additional evidences may be admitted. Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidences and directed the AO to examine the case properly by calling the books of accounts and other details and asked the AO to furnish the report. Ld.CIT(A) sent several reminders to the AO for sending the reports. The details of same are noted in para 6.3 of the appellate order but the AO did not submit any report to Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) in the absence of any challenge to the additional evidences and in the absence of any report from the AO, considered the additional evidences. Ld.CIT(A) noted that the AO simply disallowed the returned loss solely on the basis that the Audit Report alongwith financial results were not produced before it as assessment stage. The order of the AO was, accordingly, set aside and appeal of the assessee has been allowed. As regards, carry forward of the previous year losses, the AO was directed to verify the same from the record and pass the order accordingly. Ld. CIT(A) pass the impugned order dated 29.12.2015.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
