Noni Bio-tech (P) Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO (TDS), CHENNAI

ITA 1330/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51724 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI J
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Ignorance of law
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 1330/MDS/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) NONI BIO-TECH (P) LTD., FORMERLY; WEBFUND FOUNDATION (P) LTD., 12, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, SRINIVASA NAGAR, PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI 600 096. PAN AAACW 3842 M VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TDS WARD-II(3), CHENNAI 34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGIRI, JCIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH AUGUST, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 TH AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I V, AT ITA 1330/10 :- 2 -: CHENNAI DATED 9.6.2010 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE FIRST APPEAL BEF ORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY FOR THE REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES AND IN TH E LIGHT OF THAT PETITION, THE FILING OF THE APPEAL WAS LITTLE DELAY ED AND THE DELAY WAS NOT CAUSED BECAUSE OF ANY WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), BUT HELD THAT , THAT IS ONLY AN EXCUSE AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS NOT A LAY MAN AND THEREFORE, IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT A RE ASON AND THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE DELAY CAUSED IN FIL ING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS TIME BARRED. 3. WE HEARD SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APP EARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI T.N.BETGIRI, THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENU E. 4. THE LENGTH OF DELAY IN FILING THE FIRST APPEAL W AS 96 DAYS. THE DELAY IS LONG, BUT NOT INORDINATE. IT IS A FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER I NVITING HIS ITA 1330/10 :- 3 -: ATTENTION TO CERTAIN MISTAKES CREPT INTO THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. EVEN THOUGH THE PETITION IN THE FORM OF REPRESENTAT ION WAS NOT FORMERLY CHRISTIANED AS RECTIFICATION PETITION, IN PITH AND SUBSTANCE REPRESENTATION WAS IN THAT NATURE. THE A SSESSEE MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSING A UTHORITY MIGHT RESPOND TO THE REPRESENTATION IMMEDIATELY. B UT IT DID NOT HAPPEN. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APP EAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). NATURALL Y, THE FILING GOT LITTLE DELAYED. 5. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT SUCH AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE WHERE THE DELAY SHOULD NOT BE COND ONED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS IS A SIMPLE CASE WHERE THE ASS ESSEE HAS REASONABLY EXPLAINED THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE F IND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEF ORE HIM AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER. THE ORDER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX ITA 1330/10 :- 4 -: (APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN AN EFFECTIVE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING, ON WEDNESDAY, THE 24 TH OF AUGUST, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH AUGUST, 2011 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR