M/s Valence Healthcare, Kangra V. ACIT, Palampur

ITA 1174/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6595 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1174/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S VALENCE HEALTHCARE, VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, C/O RAVINDER SOOD, ADVOCATE, PALAMPUR (H.P.) TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTT. KANGRA (H.P.) PAN NO. AAFFV2793N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], PALAMPUR DATED 28.07.2016. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE C IT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING BARRED BY LIMITATI ON. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS D ISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING UPON THE APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE OPENING LINE S OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER 2 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED; SHRI RAVINDER SOOD, ADVOCATE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT APPEARED. VERBAL AS WELL AS WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM . HE FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE FILING OF THE A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT(A ) IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS:- AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL, OBSER VING AS UNDER:- I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPEAL IS LAT E ONE YEAR APPROXIMATELY AND NO REASONS FOR LATE FILING O F APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, APPEA L OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ADMITTED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT ON RECORD T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE LIMITATION GROUND. IN VIEW OF THE THIS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FO R DECISION AFRESH ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y AS WELL AS ON MERITS OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH NOV., 2017 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR