TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee company. Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee came to know about the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) only on 02/12/2023 through an e-mail intimating about the outstanding demand and thereafter the assessee immediately took steps for preparing appeals and filed the appeals on 22/12/2023 with a delay of 1944 and 1596 days respectively for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that out of these delay, 715 days were during the Covid period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022. Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that the delay in filing appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate and, therefore, the assessee could not be prejudiced on account of an ignorance or an error committed by professional engaged by the assessee: - "1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) VS ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal - Assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced affidavit of Chartered Accountant in support of his plea and said affidavit was not contested by revenue authorities, Tribunal was not justified in refusing to condone delay in filing appeal - Held, yes [Paras 19, 21 and 22][In favour of assessee] IV. Shri Parveen vs ITO [ITA No. 1134/Del/2022] [Dt. 28/02/2023] 6. It is noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Id. CIT (Appeals) by order dated 19.12.2019 for non-prosecution and the due date for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 19.02.2020. In the affidavit the assessee stated that the fact that the appeal was dismissed by the Id. CIT (Appeals) was not brought to the notice of the assessee and immediately thereafter in the month of March Covid- 19 spread across the country. There was complete lock-down for a very long period and there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udication." 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed for condoning the delay. 5. Heard rival submissions, perused the affidavit filed by the Director and the case laws relied on. The assessee filed affidavit of Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain who is the Director of the assessee company deposing, explaining the delay in filing the appeals as under: - "I, Sanjeev Kumar Jain aged about 55 years, son of Sh. Manmohan Jain, and resident of BQ - 55, 4th Floor, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi - 110088 do solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That I am director of M/s Monica Gold Pipes Pvt. Ltd., the appellant company, and as such well conversant with the facts deposed to below. 2. That the appeal against the Assessment order dated 31/03/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was disposed-off by the CIT(A)-22, New Delhi vide order dated 28/06/2018 which was uploaded on ITBA portal. The said e-filling portal was being handled by Sh. Amit Gupta, Chartered Accountant and the physical copy of Appellate order was not served upon the appellant company. 3. That the case of the Appellant Company was earlier handled by Sh. Amit Gupta, Chartered Accountant and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the loans and advances given by the assessee during these two assessment years. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 16 of the assessment order submits that the AO observed that interest bearing funds borrowed by the assessee company from banks and financial institutions have been utilized for making interest free advances without any business purposes. The AO has given the list of parties to whom the advances were made. Ld. Counsel submits that all these advances were made in the FY 2011-12 relevant to the AY 2012-13 and there was no interest disallowance in respect of such advances during the AY 2012-13. 10. Ld. Counsel further submits that during the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 which are under consideration the assessee has not advanced any loans to these parties and as a matter of fact during the AY 2014-15 part of the loan advanced to Sh. Mahesh Chand Jain was repaid to the assessee. Ld. Counsel submits that during the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 there were no short-term borrowings and only in the AY 2014-15 there was a long term borrowing of Rs.9 lakhs only. Therefore, the observations of the AO that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancial statement of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 reveals the following details: - A. Details of Interest Bearing Borrowings: Particulars As at 31/03/2012 As at 31/03/2013 As at 31/03/2014 Long Term Borrowings 95,87,715 - 9,00,000 Short Term Borrowings 6,51,41,415 - - Other Current Libilities 1,05,96,081 57,22,093 1,90,503 Total Borrowings 8,53,25,211 57,22,093 10,90,503 B. Particulars of Parties to whom Advance was given: Irwin Infra Private Limited 1,03,65,400 1,03,65,400 1,03,65,400 Mahesh Chand Jain 91,03,730 91,03,730 31,03,730 Nidhi Arora 2,80,000 2,80,000 2,80,000 Nitin Jain 20,00,000 20,00,000 20,00,000 Aadinath Probuild Private Limited 1,50,00,000 1,50,00,000 1,50,00,000 C. Details of Interest Expenses Incurred Finance cost incurred 1,39,73,428 87,93,283 5,86,391 Finance cost disallowed in the Assessment Order N.A. 37.46,010 5,43,927 Note: There has been no disallowance of Interest Expenses in the A. Y. 2012-13 [F.Y. 2011-12] or in any earlier years. D. Interest Free Funds Available Share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t advances were made out of assessee's own capital - It was found that at relevant time assessee was having adequate non-interest bearing funds by way of share capital and reserves - Further, advances were found to have been made to its subsidiaries on business considerations which were nothing but commercial expediencies of assessee - Whether findings recorded by Commissioner(Appeals) as well as Tribunal were not to be interfered with - Held, yes." 17. In the case of CIT Vs. Golden Tobacco Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: - (Head note) "Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital (Interest free advances) - Assessment years 1996-97 and 1997- 98 - Assessee- company borrowed funds and claimed deduction on interest paid - Assessee had given advance to its group concern on account of share application money - Advance was given from its reserves and not from borrowed funds - Assessing Officer disallowed interest paid on ground that advances were given for non- business purposes - No efforts to show nexus between borrowing and subsequent advancing of loans to subsidiary was made by Assessing Officer -....