Gokul Devidas Mahahan, Nashik V. ITO WD1(3), Nashik, Nashik

ITA 128/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7457 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANT LEUVA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 128/PN/2011: A.Y. 2006-07 GOKUL DEVIDAS MAHAJAN HOUSE NO. 9, NEAR CORPORATION SCHOOL YAMUNA HOUSING SOCIETY SHIVAJINAGAR, SATPUR, NASIK PAN AKSPM 1447 R : APPELLANT VS. I.T.O. WARD 1(3) NASIK RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENTS BY: SHRI HEMANT LEUVA ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-I NASIK DATED 29-11-2010 FOR A.Y. 2 006-07 ON THE POINT OF NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND ALSO IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS . 10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT FOR SHORT). 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 19-6-2009 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM. THE ASSE SSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WH ICH WAS PAGE 2 OF 3 ITA NO. 128/PN/2011 GOKUL DEVIDAS MAHAJAN A.Y. 2006-07 DELAYED BY THREE MONTHS. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NO T CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM A ND DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER REQUESTING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THAT HE LOST HIS BROTH ER DUE TO BRAIN HEMORRHAGE AND HENCE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEA L IN TIME. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORROBORATE THE SAME. THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THIS CASE BY NOT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CORROBORATE T HE EXPLANATION PUTFORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE THEREFORE, OF OPINION THAT THE MATTE R DESERVES TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDI NGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE SAME TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER AFF ORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE W ITH REGARDS TO THE ILLNESS OF HIS BROTHER WHO SUBSEQUEN TLY PASSED AWAY DUE TO BRAIN HEMORRHAGE. SINCE WE ARE PAGE 3 OF 3 ITA NO. 128/PN/2011 GOKUL DEVIDAS MAHAJAN A.Y. 2006-07 RESTORING THE MATTER ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE, WE ARE REFRAINED TO COMMENT UPON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE A T HAND. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 30 TH MARCH 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A)- I NASIK 4. CIT- NASIK 5. THE D.R, B BENCH, PUNE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE