Sh. Kamal Deen Shekh, Chamba V. ACIT, Palampur

ITA 1003/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9001 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHDR
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1003/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI KAMAL DEEN SHEKH, VS THE ACIT, GOVT. CONTRACTOR, CIRCLE-PALAMPUR, VPO CHOWARI, DISTT. KANGRA(HP). DISTT. CHAMBA (HP). PAN: AFCPS8811A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.N.ARORA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PALAMPUR DATED 28.07.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AND ADDITION OF RS. 3,76,202/- BEFORE LD . CIT(APPEALS). THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE ON MERIT HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS LATE BY 26 DAYS. SINCE NO APPLICATION FOR 2 CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED THEREFORE, APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 08.07.2016 AND ASSE SSEE WAS NEVER GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OR INFORMATION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINST WHICH APPEAL WAS FILED WAS RECEIVED ON 08.09.2011 AND APPEAL WAS INSTITUTED ON 24.10.2011 THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT TIME BARRED BY 26 DAYS. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT MATTER MAY BE REM ANDED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. ON T HE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BUT DID NOT PASS ANY ORDER ON MERIT. HE HAS HELD THAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 26 DAYS AND IN ABSENCE OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, AP PEAL WAS DISMISSED. THERE IS NO FACT MENTIONED IN THE IMPUG NED ORDER IF ANY OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THIS REGARD . FURTHER, THERE APPEARS JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONTENT ION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT TIME BARRED BY 26 DAYS. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S), BEFORE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL TO BE TIME BARRED SHO ULD 3 HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE T O EXPLAIN THE TIME BARRING MATTER AND SHOULD HAVE GIVEN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THIS REGARD. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THEREFORE, VITIATE DUE TO THESE REASONS. 5. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH OCTOBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH