S-681, Chinnathirupathy PACB Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, Salem

ITA 124/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8121 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVASJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.123/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 S-9787, K. KONDAPPANAICKENPATTY PACB LTD., YERCAUD MAIN ROAD, KANNANKURICHI POST, SALEM 636 008. PAN : AAEAS 5865 N V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (4), SALEM. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.124/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 S-681, CHINNATHIRUPATHY PACB LTD., CHINNATHIRUPATHI, SALEM 636 008. PAN : AAATT 5833 A V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (4), SALEM. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANTS BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2016 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.11.2016 2 I.T.A. NO.123/MDS/16 I.T.A. NO.124/MDS/16 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, DATED 27.10.2015 AND PERTAIN TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSID ERATION IN THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER A ND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 17 DAYS IN FILING BOTH THE APPEALS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSE SSEES BEING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HAD TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE B OARD FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS. WE HEARD LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE ALSO. WE FIND THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PE RIOD. THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 17 DAYS IS CONDONED AND THE APPEALS AR E ADMITTED. 3. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 190 DAYS IN FILING BOTH T HE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, REFUS ED TO CONDONE 3 I.T.A. NO.123/MDS/16 I.T.A. NO.124/MDS/16 THE DELAY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY IS MANAGED BY A BOARD. OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE BO ARD DELAYED THE PROCESS OF FILING THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, ACCO RDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE DELAY WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE AS SESSEE. 4. WE HEARD SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE, ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., T HE PROCEDURE FOR FILING OF THE APPEALS AFTER GETTING APPROVAL FROM T HE BOARD IS IRRELEVANT AS FAR AS THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS CONCERNE D. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GET NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE CONCERN ED AUTHORITY AND FILE THE APPEALS WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UND ER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE PRES CRIBED PERIOD BEFORE THE CIT(APPEAL). THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO TH E LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DEL AY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NORMALLY, CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ADMINISTERED BY THE ELECTED RE PRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS WERE SUP ERCEEDED AND THE ADMINISTRATION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BOARD. T HEREFORE, THE 4 I.T.A. NO.123/MDS/16 I.T.A. NO.124/MDS/16 ASSESSEE HAD TO NECESSARILY OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM TH E BOARD FOR FILING THE APPEALS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WILL NOT CREATE ANY VESTED INT EREST ON THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. IT IS ONLY TO BRING THE LI TIGATION TO AN END WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED. EVEN THOUGH THE LIMITA TION PRESCRIBED IS EXPECTED TO BE FOLLOWED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DELAY IN GETTING THE AP PROVAL OF THE BOARD IN FILING THE APPEALS IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEES WERE BEYOND THEIR CONTROL IN FILING THE APPEALS. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE PETITION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY OF 190 DAYS IN FILING THE AP PEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONDONED IN BOTH THE APPEALS. NOW BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES STAND RESTORED IN THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS ON MERIT. 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY A RE SET ASIDE AND THE DELAY OF 190 DAYS IS CONDONED AND THE APPEA LS STAND RESTORED IN THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 5 I.T.A. NO.123/MDS/16 I.T.A. NO.124/MDS/16 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A), SALEM 4. ' :3 /CIT, SALEM 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.