2025 (10) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntre (in short "NFAC"), Delhi vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2011-12. Application for Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 603 days in filing of appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. We have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and the submissions made thereon. It is seen that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, was passed on 13.10.2023, and the period for filing appeal before the Tribunal expired on 13.12.2023. The assessee, however, filed the present appeal belatedly, explaining that the delay was occasioned on account of ongoing proceedin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], it was held that length of delay is not material, so long as the explanation is bona fide and not tainted with mala fides or dilatory intent. 5. In the present case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The delay of 603 days has been explained satisfactorily in light of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 9. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee has not disputed or made any arguments with regards to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to the quantum additions of Rs. 1,92,56,204/- confirmed by ITAT. The Counsel for the assessee has not disputed levy of penalty on the aforesaid additions / disallowances confirmed by ITAT, consequent to which Ld. CIT(A) restricted the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee with regards to those additions. The only and limited issue raised by the assessee before us was that subsequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 24.12.2025 had reduced the total income of the assessee to Rs. 1,43,86....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITAT with regards to quantum additions. As stated earlier, the assessee has not disputed the quantum additions confirmed by ITAT. Further, the assessee has also not disputed levy of penalty @ 100% with regards to these quantum additions confirmed by ITAT vide order dated 03.03.2020. Therefore, in view of the above facts, the Counsel for the assessee has not pointed out to any deficiencies / error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) against which appeal has been initiated by the assessee. Further, as stated earlier even in the 154 order referred to above, the taxable income has not been reduced on account of any computational error with regards to the additions confirmed by ITAT. Accordingly, there is no mistake in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to c....