CHANDRAKANT VITHAL TRIMBAKE, PUNE V. ITO 26(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1248/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79111 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , , !'# , $ % BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAI YA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.1248/MUM/2011 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2003-04 SHRI CHANDRAKANT VITHAL TRIMBAKE, C/O MR. D.Y. PANDIT, ADV., 1187/10, KRUPA, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE-411 005 / VS. THE ITO, WARD 26(2)(2), MUMBAI-400 002 ' $ ./ () ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACPT 1123B ( '* / APPELLANT ) .. ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - / APPELLANT BY: NONE +,'* . - / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIKAS AGARWAL . /0$ / DATE OF HEARING :05.06.2014 12& . /0$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :05.06.2014 3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-28, MUMBAI DT.30.7.2010 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2 003-04. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 36,184/- LEVIED BY T HE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1248/M/2011 2 3. THE NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RP AD BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED EX-PARTE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 4. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 114 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS WHICH CAU SED THE DELAY FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 7.2.2011. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL ON TIME. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BECAUSE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM. WE FIND THAT FOR SIMILAR REASON S, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON ME RIT OF THE CASE AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JUNE, 2014 . 3 . 2& $ 4 56 05.06.2014 2 . 7 SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5 DATED 05.06.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 1248/M/2011 3 3 3 3 3 . .. . +/ +/ +/ +/ 8 &/ 8 &/ 8 &/ 8 &/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. :7 +/ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7; < / GUARD FILE. 3 3 3 3 / BY ORDER, , / +/ //TRUE COPY// = == = / > > > > ( ( ( ( (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI