SMT. MONICA GOYAL PAREEK, NOIDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-1, JAIPUR

ITA 1124/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2747 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1124/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MONICA GOYAL PAREEK, 502, ALEXANDRA-C, OM EYE, GRAND SECTOR 93B, NOIDA (UP) CUKE VS. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADJPG 6544 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHISH SHARMA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01/11/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/11/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 200 8-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATED T HE COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM VIRAL FEVER AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT PUT IN APPEARANCE ON 8 TH AUGUST, 2018. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISS ING THE APPEAL FOR THE FAULT AT THE COUNSEL. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT OF NON- APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL OUGHT NOT TO BE MADE SOLITARY BASIS FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL. ITA 1124/JP/2018_ MONICA GOYAL PAREEK VS ITO 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) EX PARTE DUE TO THE REASON OF NON-AP PEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL DESPITE SEVERAL OP PORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS THE ASSESSEE E- FILED THE APPEAL ONLY ON 26/2/2018 WHEREAS THE MANUAL APPEAL WAS FILED ON 05/4 /2016. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL FROM E-FILING OF THE APPEAL. WE FIND THAT ONCE THE APPEAL WAS INST ITUTED BY THE ASSESSEE MANUALLY ON 05/4/2016 AND WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) THEN NON-FILING OF APPEAL THROUGH ELECTRONIC FILING WOULD CONSTITUTE A DEFECT IN THE APPEAL ALREADY FILED MANUALLY. UNDISPUTEDLY THE SAID DEFECT OF E-FILING WAS REMOVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE E-FILE D THE APPEAL ON 26/2/2018 AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY MANUALLY WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THEREAFTER TO REMOVE THE DEFECT, THE APPEAL WAS ALSO FILED THROUGH E-FILING WOULD BE C ONSIDERED A VALID APPEAL AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BELATED. ACCORDINGLY, TO THE EXTENT OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND ITA 1124/JP/2018_ MONICA GOYAL PAREEK VS ITO 3 CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI RECTED TO BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID APPEAL. 2.1 SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND DESPITE NINE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT TH ERE IS A GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE TH E APPEAL AND CAUSE APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS G IVEN ALL DATES ON NINE OCCASIONS WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE ATTENDED ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY THE LD. C IT(A). THE LD AR HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE US, EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HAVING CONSIDERED THE EXPLANA TION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE DAUGH TER OF THE ASSESSEE, WE GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO APP EAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRESENT HER CASE SUBJECT TO COST OF RS. 2 ,000/- (TWO THOUSANDS ONLY). THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED NOT TO TAKE ANY ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) EXCEPT IN COMPELLI NG CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA 1124/JP/2018_ MONICA GOYAL PAREEK VS ITO 4 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/11/2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02 ND NOVEMBER, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. MONICA GOYAL PAREEK, NOIDA (UP). 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 7(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1124/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR