IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 7830/Del/2018, 273/Del/2025 & 274/Del/2025 Assessment year: 2015-16-2017-18 M/s. One Mobikwik Systems Vs Joint Commissioner of Ltd (earlier known as One Income Tax(OSD), Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd) TDS Circle, Gurgaon PAN: AABCO0442Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Shri Drona Negi, & Shri Devrat Tiwari, Advocates.

Department represented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.

DR Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.09.2025 O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M:

These three appeals, preferred by the assessee for assessment year

2015-16 – 2017-18, are directed against the combined order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgoandated 09.10.2018 in appeal No. 589- 591/17-18 against the order u/s 201 and 201(1A) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), TDS Circle, Gurgaon). The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 2208 days in respect of appeals no.273-274/Del/2025 for AY-2016-17 & 2017-18 in filing of these appeals before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that in this case the Ld.CIT(A) had passed a common order for assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18 confirming, the orders of the Ld.AO passed u/s u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act and accordingly the assessee had contested the impugned order by filing a common appeal through Form-36 for all the three years vide ITA No.7830/Del/18 dated 07.12.2018. It was contended that there was no challenge to the impugned filing by the registry. However, during the course of hearing, the fact of joint filing was noticed and appellant was advised to file separate appeals. Consequently, appeals for AY-2016-17 and 2017-18 were delinked and appeals vide ITA nos.273/Del/2025 and 274/Del/2025 for AY-2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively were filed. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. It is the case of the assessee that its act of joint filing is well recognized practice in filing of appeals before the tribunals and which has the support from Hon’ble High Courts as well as ITAT. Reference was invited to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Limited as at 153 taxmann.386 wherein it was held that filing of composite appeals does not suffers from any deficiency. Similarly, reliance was also placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Uttara Khand High Court in the case of Transocean Offshore International Ventures Limited 20 taxmann.com 737, of ITAT Bangalore in the case of JCR Drill Sol Pvt Ltd 164 taxmann.com 283 ruling on similar lines. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that even though assessee’s case of original filing of a composite appeal was supported by judicial precedents, as a matter of abundant precaution, it chose to, upon being advised by the Bench, file separate appeals albeit with a delay of about 2208 days. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

3.0 All the three appeals are revolving around a common issue and hence were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. The appeal vide ITA No.7830 for AY-2015-16 is taken as lead year for factual analysis. The decision taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 273 & 274 for AY’s-2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively.

4.0 The only issue contested in the present appeal qua ITA No.7830 / Del / 2025, through its grounds of appeal a