TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-12 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18-12-2018 against which I had filed an appeal before the Id. CIT(A) on 02-01-2019. Which was decided by the Hon'ble CIT (A) vide Order dtd 01-01-2022. The aforesaid order was passed ex parte by Honorable CIT (A) which I had not received. It was noticed by me when I received the Show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) from the Income Tax Department. It was then I realised that the Order u/s 250 was already passed without any hearing Once I came to know, I appointed the Chartered Accountant and compiled the data and documents from the earlier Chartered Accountant and file the appeal which is delayed on such account. Since the delay caused is not due to any neglect but due to circumstances beyond my control I depose this statement to support my application for delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai to condone the delay and hear my appeal on merit. Whatever is stated herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief." 3. Ld. DR objected to the submissions of the assessee on delay condonation and he submitted that all the relevant details are already available in ITR portal, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinciples laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM ) condoned more than six hundred days delay. It is pertinent to mention herein that the view taken by the present author in that case was overruled by the Third Member. 6.4. The Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust (supra) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, this Judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) clearly says that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se an illegal and unconstitutional order. The power given to the Tribunal is not to legalise an injustice on technical ground but to do substantial justice by removing the injustice. The Parliament conferred power on this Tribunal with the intention that this Tribunal would deliver justice rather than legalise injustice on technicalities. Therefore, when this Tribunal was empowered and capable of removing injustice, in our opinion, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned and the appeal of the assessee has to be admitted and disposed of on merit. 6.7 In view of the above, we condone the delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication." 5. Respectfully following the above said decision and for the sake of overall justice we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs..6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny stock company. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation, same has been added to the total income by A.O. I have upheld that I have produced copies of bills issued by M/s Emkay Global Finance Services LTD & had also demonstrated the purchase and sale of shares over a period of time. In my opinion, the Assessing Officer has simply acted on the information received from the Investigation Wing without verifying the details furnished by the assessee The assessee has also produced best possible evidence to support its claim. Consequently the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. As per Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case cited as CIT Vs Vishal Holding and Capital Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 9th August 2010. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named that the assessee was in collusion with them. In absence of such finding how is it possible to link their wrong doings with the assessee. In fact the investigation wing is a separate department which has not been assigned assessment work and has been delegated the work of only making investigation. The assessee is not having any intention to boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t opportunity is provided to the shareholder to enable him earning of profit or incurring of loss. If such exit opportunity is not provided by the operator who were closely holding the share, the investor is stuck and he cannot sell the share as he will not get a buyer. In this particular case price of share increased from 45.80 in April 2010 to 123.05 in December 2010 i.e., within a short period of 8 months. This price rise has happened without there being any positive change in the business financials of the company. EPS of the share is negligible, and net worth is very low. Under such circumstances the increase in the share price could not be explained. Appellant has contended that she has purchased these shares through registered brokers therefore, the transactions cannot be doubted. I find that merely entering into transaction through registered brokers is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction. She has no knowledge of the activities of company whereas she is a regular dealer in shares. The assessee could not reply that for what motive she has purchased the shares which is a penny stock and which had no scope of rising. Appellant has contended that tran....