K. Mangalam, Pondicherry V. DCIT, Pondicherry

CO 10/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2934 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NICHAL JT
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C/SMC, CHENNAI , ! BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.2884/MDS/2016 & CO NO.10/MDS/2017 ' # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE, KANNAIAH BUSINESS CENTRE, NO.378 386, M.G.ROAD, 3 RD FLOOR, PUDUCHERRY 605 001. VS. K.MANGALAM, NO.14, KUMARAN STREET, KAMARAJ NAGAR, PONDICHERRY 605 011. [PAN: AAJPM 9306N] ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NICHAL, JT. CIT *+&' ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : NONE , $ ( - / DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2017 .% ( - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.04.2017 /O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ON (CO) BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUDUCHERRY (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 10 .03.2016, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 14 3(3) R/W. S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 16.12.2 011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2 ITA NO.2884/MDS/2016 & CO 10/2017(AY 2008-09) K.MANGA LAM 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS , HOWEVER, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 01.02.2017 (PLACED ON RECORD), BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE TAX EFFECT OF THE APPEAL IS BELOW . 10 LACS, AND THAT THEREFORE THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE U/S. 268A OF THE ACT R/W CIRCULAR NO.2 1/2015 DATED 10.12.2015 PRESCRIBING THE THRESHOLD MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE AP PEALS BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT . 10 LACS, REGARD FOR WHICH IS TO BE HAD IN TERMS O F S.268A. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENC H THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DELAYED BY A PERIOD OF 72 DAYS. A CONDONA TION PETITION STANDS FILED ALONG WITH, WHICH STATES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( AO) BEING ENGAGED IN INCOME DECLARATION SCHEME ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS HOLDING AD DITIONAL CHARGE OF ANOTHER CIRCLE, AS THE REASONS LEADING TO THE DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL. BEING ENGAGED IN OTHER ACTIVITIES IS IN MY VIEW NOT A VALID GROUND F OR NOT OBSERVING THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN ITS RESPECT UNDER THE ACT. TRUE, THE CONCERNED OFFICER MAY BE CARRYING ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THE RELEVANT TIME, BUT IT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE FACT THAT TIME LIMITS HAVE TO BE OBSERVED, FOR WHICH THE MATTERS HAVE TO BE ORGANIZED ON A PRIORITY BASIS. T HE DELAY IS NOT FOR A FEW DAYS BUT FOR NEARLY 2 MONTHS. IN MY VIEW, THEREFORE, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE GROUNDS STATED. IN FACT, EVEN A S POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TAX EFFECT BEING BELOW . 10 LACS, IT IS EVEN OTHERWISE NOT MAINTAINABLE UN DER LAW. THE SAME ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS UN-ADMITTED. THE ASSESSEES CO IS ALSO ACCORDINGLY NOT MAINTAINABLE. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE REVENUES APPEAL AND TH E ASSESSEES CO ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCLUSIO N OF THE HEARING. SD/- ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3 ITA NO.2884/MDS/2016 & CO 10/2017(AY 2008-09) K.MANGA LAM /CHENNAI, / /DATED, APRIL 10, 2017 EDN 0 ( *'-12 32%- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. *+&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 4- ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 4- /CIT 5. 2$56 *'-' /DR 6. 67# 8 /GF