2025 (5) TMI 2121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we have noted that the appeal of the assessee is delayed for filing by 293 days. An application seeking condonation of delay was filed before us stating that the delay was attributable to the Accountant of the assessee firm to whom the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was handed over to send it to the office of the Chartered Accountant for filing appeal before the ITAT, but due to work overload owing to March ending, the instruction skipped the attention of the Accountant. That only when the penalty notice u/s.270A of the Act dated 29.11.2024 was received by the assessee and was forwarded to his Chartered Accountant for necessary response t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....024 for A.Y. 2018- 19 (copy attached herewith), the partner of the applicant firm handed over the said notice to the accountant for forwarding the same to the Chartered Accountant for necessary response and also enquired regarding the ITAT appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 to the accountant. On such enquiry, the accountant was reminded of the order of the Id. CIT(A) and realized his mistake that he forgot to forward the aforesaid order to the office of the Chartered Accountant, and hence, immediately on realization of the same, the order along with the other appeal papers were compiled and necessary signatures were obtained and were forwarded to the office of the Chartered Accountant, who in turn forwarded the same to Adv. Rushin Patel at Ahmedabad f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t no default of this kind will happen in the future and the applicant may kindly be pardoned for the delayed filing of appeal. " 4. The assessee has duly supported its application with an affidavit of the Accountant confirming on oath that it was his mistake that the CIT(A)'s order was not delivered to the Chartered Accountant for filing appeal to the ITAT in time. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the reasoning mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay before us and pleaded that delay of 293 days in filing of the appeal be condoned. 6. Ld. DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. 7. Having heard both the parties, we find that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence. A litigant doesn't stand to benefit by resorting to delay. We make a reference in this regard to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353. 9. Considering the judicial decisions as above and noting that the assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay, we consider it a fit case for condoning the delay and admitting the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 10. Having said so, we shall now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised before us which read as under: "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on acts of the case, in sustaining addition of alleged cessation of lia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-16 2 Astha Vinayak Steel 26,430/- 2015-16 3 L. J. Traders 3,89,474/- 2015-16 4 Tarun Steel 44,366/- 2015-16 Total 5,45,347/- 12.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the solitary reason for treating the liabilities as having ceased to exist, was that the PAN number of the creditors were not furnished. This fact, he stated, by no stretch of logic could lead to the conclusion that the liabilities ceased to exist. He drew our attention to the findings of the AO in this regard: "The assessee has not provided the details of these outstanding creditors for A.Y. 2014-15. It can be fairly concluded that these creditors are outstanding for more than three years as the assessee has not provided PAN of these p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of both the parties, we find merit in the argument made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no case on facts for treating the outstanding balance of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 5,45,347/- as having ceased to exist and added to the income of the assessee in terms of Section 41(1) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the impugned parties have admittedly confirmed the outstanding balance. The only basis with the Revenue for treating these liabilities to have ceased to exist was the fact that their PAN number was not furnished. The Revenues case rests on the premise that the onus is on the assessee to prove that liabilities exist and by not furnishing PAN of the impugned parties, the asse....