Sri Raffi Baig, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1157/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5365 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE DR. O.K NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1157/BANG/2009 (A SST. YEAR -2004-05) SRI RAFFI BAIG, 198/1, KWAJA MANSION, DAS COMPOUND, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SRINIVASAN, CHARTERED ACCOUN TANT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JASON P BOAZ, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX O R D E R PER DR. O.K NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2004-05. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) VI AT BANGALORE DATED 8/10/2009. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT 1961. ITA NO.1157/B/09 2 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 11 MONTHS IN FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ELABORATELY STATED THE RE ASONS WHY HE COULD NOT FILE THE RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED I N LAW. BUT THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THOSE REASONS EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ACCORDINGLY DISMI SSED THE APPEAL AS TIME BARRED. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS PLACED BEFORE US AND WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE SURROUNDING FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE, WHERE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RESORT ED TO THE EXTREME STEP OF DECLINING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE AS SESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS IN A DETAILED MANNER AND THOS E REASONS ARE IN FACT PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION S ARE ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCES UNLESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES PULL BACK THE CR EDIBILITY OF THOSE EXPLANATIONS. IN THIS CASE, NO MATERIALS ARE AVAI LABLE TO DEFEAT THE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION. ITA NO.1157/B/09 3 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT BACK THE FILE TO THE ROLLS OF THE CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARI NG AND DISPOSAL ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVE N AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY , THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010, AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (DR. O.K NARAYANAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT VMS. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF 7..GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALOR E.