Smt. M.Indira, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1245/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66276 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K VISWANATHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D BALAJI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1235/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MR. ABDUL AZIZ PIRANI, HYDERABAD. .... APPELLANT PAN:AIFPP 4310 B VS. ITO, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. BALAJI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. VISWANATHAM DATE OF HEARING : 02-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-09-2012 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 01-06-2011 OF CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD PASS ED IN ITA NO.051/ITO-5(3)/CIT(A)-V/2009-10 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTES TED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IS DISMISSING THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF DELAY OF 182 DAYS IN FILI NG THE APPEAL. 2 ITA NO. 1235 OF 2011 SRI ABDUL AZIZ PIRANI, HYDERABAD. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL DOING BUSINESS IN READYMADE GARMENTS. AN ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOM E AT RS.17,86,828/- AND RAISING TAX DEMAND OF RS.7,22,91 7/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). IT APPEARS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 182 DAYS BEFORE THE CIT (A). SINCE THE AS SESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPLICATION EXPLAINING THE DELAY AND SEEKI NG CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE CIT (A) PASSED AN ORDER DISMISSING TH E APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. IN COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEAR NED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TI ME VENDOR OF READYMADE GARMENTS AND IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON. T HE ASSESSEE MET WITH A ROAD ACCIDENT ON 20-12-2003 AND WAS CONF INED TO BED REST FOR CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME. BEING AN ILL ITERATE PERSON, HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN AFTER R ECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ONLY AFTER RECEIVING ADVICE FROM A CA, THE ASSESSEE BECAME AWARE THAT AN APPEAL HAS TO BE FILE D AGAINST EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED RAISING THE SAID DEMA ND. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE TOOK STEPS FOR FILING OF THE APP EAL AFTER A DELAY OF 182 DAYS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROCURE PROPER PROFESSIONAL HELP AND GUIDANCE, THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITHOUT A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN A PROPER MANNER. AS A RESU LT OF WHICH THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 4. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US A PETITION FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY TO BE FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE CAUSE OF DELAY. 5. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) BY GIVING AN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY. 3 ITA NO. 1235 OF 2011 SRI ABDUL AZIZ PIRANI, HYDERABAD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESS EE DESERVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING OF A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). WE THEREFORE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) WHO SHALL CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT TH ERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THEN HE WILL CONDONE THE DELAY AND HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE CIT (A) SHALL AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7-09-2012. SD/- SD /- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 7 TH SEPT., 2012. COPY TO:- 1) SRI ABDUL AZIZ PIRANI, POONAM APARTMENTS, CA LAN E, ABIDS, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT CONCERNED, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABA D. JMR* 4 ITA NO. 1235 OF 2011 SRI ABDUL AZIZ PIRANI, HYDERABAD.