G.Prabhakaran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 11/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7370 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC C BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.11/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI G. PRABHAKARAN, NO.24, ETHIRAJSAMY SALAI, ERUKNCHERY, KODUNGAIYUR, CHENNAI 600 018 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD5(4), CHENNAI 600 006 PAN: AALPP5144K ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT ! /DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2017 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-5, CHENNAI DATED 04.11.2016 IN ITA NO.130/CIT(A)-5/15- 16 PASSED U/S. 250(6) R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2 I.T.A. NO.11/MDS/2017 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY OF 281 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL . 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO LOCATE THE WHEREABOUTS OF TH E SUNDRY CREDITORS IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF HIS DEBTORS. SINCE IT WAS TIME CONSUMING TO LOCATE THE DEBTORS BECAUSE MA NY OF THEM HAD CHANGED THEIR ADDRESS AND DUE TO OTHER CONSTRAI NTS WITH RESPECT TO HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, THE DELAY HAD O CCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE THEREFORE PLE ADED THAT THE DELAY OF 281 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR DE- NOVA CONSIDERATION. 4. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THOUGH I DO NOT FIND MUCH MER IT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR, CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND QUANTUM OF ADDITION AND THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN 3 I.T.A. NO.11/MDS/2017 INDIVIDUAL TRADING IN TIMBER AND WOOD ITEMS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 281 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. I ALSO CAU TION THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO EXPED ITE HIS PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL BE A T LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% /CHENNAI, &' /DATED 21 ST MARCH, 2017 JR. ' )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , ( ) /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. *-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF.