B.Ranga Mani, L/R of (Late) B.Ravindra Nadh, Eluru V. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, Eluru

ITA 108/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6643 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R GOVINDARAJAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.108/VIZAG/2014 B. RANGA MANI, L/R OF (LATE) B. RAVINDRA NATH, ELUR U 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . ' , % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.108/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) B. RANGA MANI L/R OF (LATE) B. RAVINDRA NATH ELURU ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ELURU [PAN NO. ACTPB8760H ] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( ()' / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. GOVINDA RAJAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2017 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX {CIT(A)}, RAJAHMUNDRY VI DE F.NO.HQRS/28/263/CIT/RJY/2012-13 DATED 22.3.2013 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ITA NO.108/VIZAG/2014 B. RANGA MANI, L/R OF (LATE) B. RAVINDRA NATH, ELUR U 2 CONDONATION OF DELAY:- 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL IN THIS CASE ON 7.4.20 14 WITH DELAY OF 318 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED PETITION FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE IS A LEGAL HEIR OF LATE B. RAVINDRA NA TH. THE ASSESSEE BEING WIFE OF MR. RAVINDRA NATH, SHE BECAME THE LEG AL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE B. RAVINDRA NATH. IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY (CIT) PASSED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') ON 22.3.2013 WHIC H WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.3.2013. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE EXPIRED AND SHE BECAME THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, SINCE THERE WAS NO DEMAND RAISED AND THERE WAS NO INSTRUCTION ANYWHERE IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT REGARDING FILING OF APPEAL. ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE REAL IZED THAT THERE WAS A DEMAND CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF TH E ACT, WHICH SHOULD BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS AND THE APPEAL HAS TO BE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS ADVISED BY THE AUDITOR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHE IS 60 YEARS OLD AND HER HUSBAND EXPIRED IN 2012 AND IN 2013 SHE HAD LEG FRACTURE AN D SHE UNDERWENT SURGERY FOR THIGH BONE AND FROM THEN ONWARDS, SHE L OST MOBILITY AND ITA NO.108/VIZAG/2014 B. RANGA MANI, L/R OF (LATE) B. RAVINDRA NATH, ELUR U 3 BECAME COMPLETELY BEDRIDDEN AND SICK EVEN TILL DATE . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND TO ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY OPPOS ED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS A WIDOW AND HER HUSBAND WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER BUSINESS WAS EXPIRED IN 2012. BEING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SH E IS REPRESENTING THE CASE ON BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND. THE LD. A.R. SUBMIT TED THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LEGAL POSITION REGARDING FILING OF APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO DEMAND AND LACK OF INSTRUCTION IN THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT SHE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SHE REALIZED THE TAX EFF ECT OF THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. AND APPROACHED THE AUDITOR, WHO GUIDE D HER TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE N ONLY THE APPEAL WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE WAS A HOUSEWIFE AND DUE TO SHEER IGNORANCE, THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED. SHE IS 60 YEARS OLD AND HAD MEDICAL PROBLEMS INCLUDING THE FRACTURE OF THIGH BONE AND SHE IS BED RIDDEN. CONSIDERING ITA NO.108/VIZAG/2014 B. RANGA MANI, L/R OF (LATE) B. RAVINDRA NATH, ELUR U 4 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND APPEAL IS ADMITTED. APPEAL IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 9.11. 2017. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 27 TH SEPT17. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . ' ) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 27.09.2017 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT B. RANGAMANI, L/R OF (LATE) B. R AVINDRA NATH, PROP: M/S. RAVI ENTERPRISES, EASTERN STREET, ELURU-1. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ELURU 3. + / THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM