Shri Kamalkant K.Parikh, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-14(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1067/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6842 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: R K JINDAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, HONBLE VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI D.K. TYAGI, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1067/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 DATE OF HEARING:13.4.11 DRAFTED: 13.4.11 KAMALKANT K PARIKH, A-15 AKSHARDHAM SOCIETY, NR. SHYAM PARK, KRISHNANAGAR, NARODA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AGWPP4211A V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(4), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI R.K. JINDAL, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI RAJESH OJHA, SR-DR O R D E R PER D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. C IT(A)-XXI/ABD/148/06- 07 DATED 15-11-2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 . 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED BEING TIME BAR RED VIDE ORDER DATED 06-08-2010 AS DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS AP PEAL COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT AND THE COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15-03-2011 ALLOWED THE PETITIO NER TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR LATE FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBU NAL WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE SUCH GROUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THIS BACKGR OUND OF THIS CASE BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ON CONDONATION OF DELAY. ITA NO.1067/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 KAMALKANT K PARIKH V. ITO WD-14(4) ABD PAGE 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ASSESSEE WHICH READS AS UNDE R:- AFFIDAVIT I KAMALKANT K PARIKH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT A-15, AKSHARDHAM SOC, NR. SHYAM PARK, B/H, KRISHNA NAGAR, NARODA, AHMEDABAD-382345. AFFIRM THAT 1) MY INCOME TAX MATTERS ARE LOOKED AFTER BY M/S. H ITENDRA & ASSOCIATES A TAX CONSULTANCY FIRM. 2) AFTER THE RETIREMENT FROM MY SERVICE I JOINED PR IVATE FIRM. I USED TO GIVE ALL THE PAPERS RELEVANT TO INCOME TAX ARE H ANDED OVER TO OUR TAX CONSULTANT BY M/S. HITENDRA & ASSOCIATES 3) I REQUESTED AND APPROACHED TO HITENDRA & ASSOCIA TES FOR SENDING THE WHOLE PAPERS TO RAJENDRA JINDAL & ASSOC IATES. BUT THE PAPERS WERE GIVEN TO RAJENJDA JINDAL & ASSOCIAT ES VERY LATE HENCE THERE IS A DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AHMEDABAD. 4) I AM SUFFERING FROM HIGH DIABETES DUE TO THIS I FAILED TO FOLLOW RIGOROUSLY WITH MY ADVOCATE M/S. HITENDRA & ASSOCIA TES HENCE THERE IS A DELAY OF 35 DAYS. 5) I NOTED THAT THERE IS DELAY IN FILING OF THE APP EAL FOR THAT ABOVE MENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES IS RESPONSIBLE. 6) SIR, BASICALLY I WAS SALARIED PERSON AND AFTER R ETIREMENT DUE TO PHYSICAL PROBLEMS AND FAMILY PROBLEMS I COULD NOT F OLLOW MY INCOME TAX MATTERS. 7) I URGED THE HONOURABLE ITAT AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL P ENALTY. CONDONE THE DELAY AND I PROMISE SIR I WILL TAKE EXT RA CARE IN FUTURE. SD/- K K PARIKH (KAMALKANT K PARIKH) VERIFICATION I KAMALKANT K PARIKH, AGED ABOVE 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT A-15, AKSHARDHAM SOC. NR. SHYAM PARK, B/H KRISHNA NAGAR, NARODA, AHMEDABAD-382345. AFFIRMS THAT AS STATED ABOVE IN 1 TO 7 ARE CORRECT & TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE & BELIEF . K K PARIKH (KAMALKAN K PARIKH) HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF BHARAT VIKAS UDYOG V. ITO (1989) 35 TTJ 204 (DEL) AND ARGUED THAT DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL CAUSED ON ACCOUNT OF LAPSE OF ADVOCATE, LOOK ING AFTER THE ASSESSEES TAX MATTERS, WAS CONDONABLE. LD. DR DID NOT SERIOUS LY OBJECT TO THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. ITA NO.1067/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 KAMALKANT K PARIKH V. ITO WD-14(4) ABD PAGE 3 4. THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONTENTS OF THE AF FIDAVIT AND THE CASE LAW CITED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE DELAY WAS CONDONED AND WE PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE CASE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSION MADE AND THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSE SSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME AS THE CASE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED . THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION AND THE DO CUMENTS FILED OR TO BE FILED BY ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 15 TH APRIL, 2011 SD/- SD/- ( G.D.AGARWAL ) ( D.K. TYAGI ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 15/04/2011 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- XXI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD