IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2234/Del/2015 िनधा(cid:5)रणवष(cid:5)/Assessment Year: 2011-12 THREEPENCE CRAFT, बनाम CIT-IX, L-93, Chanakaya Place, Vs. New Delhi.

Part-II, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

PAN No.AAAFK9580 अपीलाथ(cid:17) Appellant (cid:19)(cid:20)यथ(cid:17)/Respondent ITA No. 5410/Del/2019 िनधा(cid:5)रणवष(cid:5)/Assessment Year: 2011-12 THREEPENCE CRAFT, बनाम INCOME TAX OFFICER, L-93, Chanakaya Place, Vs. Ward-44(2), Part-II, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

New Delhi.

PAN No.AAAFK9580 अपीलाथ(cid:17) Appellant (cid:19)(cid:20)यथ(cid:17)/Respondent &

ITA No. 5995/Del/2019 िनधा(cid:5)रणवष(cid:5)/Assessment Year: 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, बनाम THREEPENCE CRAFT, Ward-44(2), Vs. L-93, Chanakaya Place, New Delhi. Part-II, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

PAN No.AAAFK9580 अपीलाथ(cid:17) Appellant (cid:19)(cid:20)यथ(cid:17)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv.

Revenue by Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 17.07.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 24.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

These appeals are filed by Assessee and Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT-9, New Delhi dated 03.11.2014 passed u/s 263 of the Act and the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Delhi dated 08.04.2019 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)

r.w.s. 263 of the Act for the AY 2011-12.

2. The appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA 2234/Del/2015 against the order of the Ld. CIT dated 03.11.2014 passed u/s 263 of the Act is time barred by 38 days and the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay.

3. Heard rival submissions on the delay in filing the appeal.

4. The assessee explained that the delay so occurred in filing the appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee and not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee since the copy of the Ld.CIT was sent to the Counsel who represented the case of the assessee before the Ld.CIT. The assessee explained that the Counsel who represented the matter before the CIT to whom the assessee forwarded a copy of the order of CIT for filing appeal, could not file the appeal as he was not familiar with the matters before the Tribunal and this was communicated to the assessee later and the assessee took steps immediately to engage another Counsel for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in this process delay of 38 days occurred in filing the appeal and therefore the assessee prayed that the delay since neither willful nor deliberate the same may be condoned.

5. Considering the rival submissions and perusal of the petition for condonation of delay and affidavit filed alongwith petition, we find that there is reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time before the Tribunal by the assessee. Thus, the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned.

6. Coming to the merits of the case, the assessee raised the following grounds in this appeal: -

1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld.CIT annulling the assessment order passed by the AO is untenable in the absence of order of the AO being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the issue of withholding tax on the discount allowed to the buyer was before the AO in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and was allowed after application of mind by him as such the same cannot be the matter for reassessment u/s 263 of the Act.

(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO having taken one of the possible views the Ld. CIT was not justified in holding the assessment order as errone