Sujal Vijaybhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. ITO, Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1220/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7508 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1220 /AHD/2018 & / ASSTT. YEAR: 2011 - 2012 SUJAL VIJAYBHAI PATEL , 104 , ANIMESH BUILDING, C.G. ROAD , ABOVE CARGO FORD, AHMEDABAD - 380007 . PA N: AHAPP2388M VS . I.T. O , WARD - 10 ( 4 ) , AHMEDABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA , A.R REVENUE BY : SHRI N.K. GOYAL , SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 / 01 / 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 / 01/2020 / O R D E R PER MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE INSTANT APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 10.03 .20 16 PASSED BY THE L EARNED C OMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5 , AHMEDABAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 26.0 2.20 14 PAS SED BY THE ITO, WARD - 10(4 ) , AHMEDABA D UNDER SECTION 143 (3)OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011 - 20 12 . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS CASE IS THIS THAT ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011 - 12 DATED 31.07.2011 DECLARING ITA NO. 1220 /AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011 - 2012 2 T OTAL INCOME OF RS.1,59,980/ - . THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER BY MA K ING ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.36 ,06, 614 / - U/S.68 OF THE ACT O N ACCOUNT OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF THAT AMOUNT IN HIS ACCOUNT BY WAY OF TRANSFER AND ADDITION OF RS.1 , 09 , 676/ - U/S.69C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE . T HE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO EMI RATES AIRWAYS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING W IFE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN REPLY DATED 26/02/2016. H OWEVER, THE SAID EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE S WIFE IN RESPECT TO THE IS SUES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE COGENT EVIDENCE S AND THUS WAS NOT ALLOWED . THE APPEAL PREF ER RED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS ALSO SUFFERED FRO M LIMITATION BY 25 DAYS ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE S AS WELL AS PAPER BOOK CONTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE IS THIS THAT HE WAS UNDERGOING I MPRISONMENT AS UNDER TRAIL LONG UNDER NSPS ACT FROM LONG DECEMBER 2012 AND THE BAIL APPLICATION MADE FROM TIME TO TIME GOT REJECTED BY THE COURT INCLUDING THE APEX C OURT FOR RELEASED ON PAY ROLL. FURTHERMORE, T HE APP ELLANT , DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 2016 TO M AY 2018 WAS UNDER DETENTION AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE S WIFE REMAIN ED ONLY PERSON TO LOOK AFTER THE AFFAIRS HAVING MENTAL AGONY AND WORRY ON ACCOUNT OF DETENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEITHER COULD TAKE STEP IN DUE TIME TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' . H OWEVER, SUCH P LEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTE D BY THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' . HENCE THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THERE IS 719 DAYS DELAY IN PREFERRING THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US BY THE APPELLANT. A APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WITH AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELL ANT. HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT NARRATING ENTIRE FACTS OF THE ITA NO. 1220 /AHD/2018 A.Y. 2011 - 2012 3 DETENTION CAUSING IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY AND THE CAUSE FOR NOT BEEN ABLE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. WE HAVE THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED THE SAME AND FOUND JUSTICIABLE TO CONDONE THE DELAY TO PREFER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' . 3. WE FIND GENUINE CAUSE FOR NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE US BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO LATE FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' AFTER T AKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE SUFFERING AND HARDSHIP FACED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE DETENTION . WE HOWEVER, CONDONE THE DELAY IN BOTH THE OCCASIONS . F URTHER THAT IN ORDER TO PRE VENT THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, WE FIND IT FIT AN D PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ''LD.CIT (A )'' TO RE - EXAMINE THE ISSUE S UPON PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS UPON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD OR ANY OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHICH THE AS SESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 /01/2020 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - - SD - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( MS MADHUMITA ROY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (TRUE COPY) AHMEDABAD; DATED 30 / 01/2020 MANISH