IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

I.T.A. No. 44/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Capco Finance and Vs. ITO Ward 15 1 1 Investment Private Room no 456, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 103 Gateway Plaza Churchgate, Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai-400020.

Powai West, 400076 PAN: AABCC8254A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri. Manish Sheth Respondent by Shri. Asif Karmali, SR. D.R.

Date of Hearing 18.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The Present appeal filed by the assessee arise out of order dated 27/11/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi for assessment year

2012-13 on following grounds of appeal:

“(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing an appeal (a) On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law the Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that section 249(2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, mentions that the appeal may be admitted if there is a 'sufficient cause' in delay in filing an appeal and the lockdown period, non- functioning of the income tax portal and the non-handling of the assessment order by the appellant staff amounts to 'sufficient cause' in delay in filing an appeal.

(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not considering the affidavit filed by the appellant staff who has not handed over the assessment order to the management in time.

(c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has not considered that the first notice of hearing was issued by the office of the Id. CIT(A) on 27-04-2022, the appellant filed online reply on 29-04-2022, the second notice of hearing was issued on 22-06-2022 and the appellant replied on 27-06-2022 and again the third notice of hearing was issue on 03-10-2024. The appellant replied оп 10-10-2024. Please refer to table produced by the Id. CIT(A) on page no.2 of the appellant order. The appellant is asking why there a gap in issuing notice of hearing for more then one and half years after the last notice even thought there is a single issue under consideration and the same reply is filed by the appellant in all three notices. Is the delay of more than one and half year by the Id. CIT(A) is pardonable? as the appellant faces pressure of recovery from the department all the time. If yes, the appellant's delay in filing an appeal due to circumstances beyond its control need not be pardoned?

(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,00,000 u/s 69 A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 on a non-existent company and therefore, void abinitio.

(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have considered that the company name has been struck off from the register of corporate affairs from 03/05/2012 and hence no reassessment proceedings can be conducted on the assessee.

(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC CIT(A) ought to have considered that vide letter dated 07/09/2018, the assessee's Chartered Accountant informed the Ld.AO about the company name struck-off from the register from 03/05/2012. Even with the knowledge that the company is not in existence, the Id.

AO passed an order dtd. 21-12-2018 (c) On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that in appellant's own case, when the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai 'SMC 'bench I.T.A. No. 2538/Mum/2022, has declared the quantum assessment order and penalty order u/s 271F, I.T.A. No. 2421/Mum/2022 both dtd. 16-12-2022, on non-existent company as bad in law for the immediate previous year (AY 2011-12), then the assessment order for next assessment year will have same fate and does not survive.

(d) On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law the Id.