Shri Utagi Ramesh Kareppa, Gokak V. The Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Gokak., Gokak

ITA 1/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2113 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK RATKAL LD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH KAREPPA UTAGI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 01 & 02 /PNJ/201 6 : (ASST. Y R S : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ) UTAGI RAMESH KAREPPA , A/P AVARADI , TAL GOKAK , DISTRICT BELGAUM. PAN : AA VPU5808P ( APPELLANT S ) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK, DISTRICT BELGAUM. (RESPONDENT S ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAMESH KAREPPA UTAGI, ASSESSEE . REVENUE BY : SHRI ABHISHEK RATKAL , LD. DR. D ATE OF HEARING: 1 9 / 0 4 /201 6 DATE OF ORDER : 1 9 / 0 4 /201 6 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , J.M : THESE ARE TWO APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE L D. CIT( A), BELGAUM IN ITA NO.235/BGM/2011 - 12 AND ITA NO.13/BGM/2013 - 14 DATED 17.03.2014 AND 12 .0 5 .2015 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SHRI RAMESH KAREPPA UTAGI, THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED IN PERSON AND SHRI ABHISHEK RATKAL , LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 3 . IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE LD. ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF NEARLY 619 DAYS FOR 2009 - 10 AND 184 DAYS FOR 2010 - 11, IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE NECESSARY 2 ITA NOS. 01 &02/PNJ/2016 (ASST. YRS: 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11) AFFIDAVIT S . IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ILL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD. ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO THE ILL HEALTH THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UNABLE TO BRIEF HIS COUNSEL PROPERLY IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THIS HAS RESULTED IN THE APPEA L S OF THE ASSESSEE BEING DISMISSED ON ACCOUN T OF NON - PROSECUTION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT ITS APPEAL PROPERLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 4. THE LD. DR IN REPLY VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE COND ON ATION OF DELAY AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) . IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ALSO THERE WAS NO CO - OPERATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AD MIT T ED LY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY SPECIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT DUE TO HIS ILL HEALTH THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S HAS OCCURRED. THIS AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SHOW N TO BE FALSE NOR IS THERE ANY ALLEGATION THAT THE AVERMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE WRONG. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S MUST BE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN SO FAR AS WHEN TECHNICALITY IS PIT TED AGAINST SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE THAN TECHNICALITY MUST ST AND DOWN. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S STANDS CON DO N E D AND THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF ON MERITS. ON MERITS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THE LD.CIT(A), BY DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE REASON THAT THE FAILURE ON HIS PART WAS ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ILL HEALTH . THE SAID FAILURE HAS BEEN CONDONED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDONING THE DELAY. THE SAME REASON WOULD STAND FOR CONDONING THE DEFAULT IN REGARD TO THE NON - PROSECUTION OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THIS BEEN SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE S IN THE APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO 3 ITA NOS. 01 &02/PNJ/2016 (ASST. YRS: 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11) SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND WE DO SO . LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL EVIDENCE AS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIA TE ITS APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 7 . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 9 . 0 4 .201 6 . SD/ - ( NARENDRA S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI - GOA DATED : 1 9 / 0 4 /201 6 *A* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI