TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act'), for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 846 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation along with an affidavit of its director. The petition reads as under :- "Before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, 225/C, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 020. Reg: Ms. ROOPREKHA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. (PAN: AADCR8548Q) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ref: Appeal against order of Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals)-17, Kolkata dated 08/03/2019 in Appeal No.331/CIT(A)-17/Kol/17-18 passed /s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Sub: Petition praying condonation of delay of 298 days in fili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lawyer and according to his advice became aware that the impugned appellate order is independently an appealable order. As the actual date of receipt of the said order was not known, therefore, the order date 08.03.2019 is taken as receipt date to count the delay in filing this appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The appeal is being filed on 10/09/2021 resulting in a total delay of 857 days beyond the prescribed due date. Period of delay of 559 days starting from March, 2020 till 09/09/2021, i.e. the date of filing the impugned appeal, stands already condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated below and the reason for delay of the rest of the 298 days is explained below with a prayer for condonation of the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020, has taken suo moto cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 pandemic and resultant difficulties faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/ suits/appeals/ all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by the Act and extended all such proceedings w.e.f. March, 2020 till further orders passed by the Supreme Court. CBDT also vide Circular No. 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021 considering the said order of the Supreme Court has extended the limitation till further orders. In view of the above, therefore, the delay for 298 days even before the pandemic period in filing this appeal is for good and sufficient reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, further contended that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution in an ex-parte order. He pointed out that there was change of address and, therefore, the notice could not be served upon the assessee. He further drew our attention to the assessment order and submitted that even the Assessing Officer has not carried out the exercise in the line of directions given by the ld. Commissioner in an order passed u/s 263 of Act, hence both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and proceedings deserve to be instituted at the level of the Assessing Officer. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, contended that though there are shortcomings at the end of the Assessing Officer in passin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Directors of both investee and investor companies could not be carried out by issuing Summons u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act following the direction in order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. In the instant case, during the relevant year, the assessee company raised fresh share capital of Rs.200400000/- (4106000 + 196294000). In this situation, the Ld. CIT had issued the direction in his set aside order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act to investigate the fresh capital with the compulsory appearance of the Directors of the said assessee company as well as Directors of the companies who had invested fresh share capital in the assessee company during the said asst. year. The burden of proof clearly had shifted on the assessee company to substantiate....