Roop Lal Baleem, Chandigarh V. ITO, W-(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1369/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0560 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDER KUMAR GARG
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL M EMBER ./ ITA NO. 1369/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI ROOP LAL BALEEM, C/O THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SCI 110-111, SECTOR 17-D, CHANDIGARH. VS THE ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO: AAOPB6780C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GARG # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT-DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2019 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09.2019 $%/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.08.20 18 OF CIT(A), CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. SINCE THE ADDITIONS C HALLENGED ON MERITS STOOD SUSTAINED AS THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE PARTIE S WERE FIRST HEARD ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) - 1 CHANDIGARH ERRED IN DISMISSING OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ITA 1369/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 5 APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BY NOT CONDONI NG THE DELAY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SITUATION OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING OF THE P RESENT APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN EXPLANATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE GENUINE REASONS FOR FILIN G OF THE APPEAL LATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF LIMITATION, IT WAS HIS PRA YER, MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE SAID AUTHORITY MAY BE DIRECTED TO PASS AN ORDER ON MERITS. 3. THE LD. CIT-DR MR. SINGH WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRES S FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO WHAT DISCUSSION ON FACTS H AS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ON A READING OF PARA 3 AND 3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT WAS SEEN TH AT THE DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER IS ONLY ON THE CASE LAWS RE LIED UPON TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AND ON THE EXPLANATION OFFERE D ADDRESSING THE DELAY, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION. 4. THE LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO READ OUT FROM THE ORDER WHAT WAS THE DELAY NOTICED BY THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR WAS UNABLE TO STATE THE EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HIS SUBMIS SION THAT THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED BY THE CIT(A) ALSO . IT WAS ALSO HIS ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS A DELAY. THIS FAC T HAS NOT ITA 1369/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 5 BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. DR ALSO. THE DELAY, IT WA S ARGUED, NEEDS TO BE CALCULATED. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ADMIT TEDLY THERE WAS A DELAY IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSE SSEE. WHAT IS THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DELAY, IT IS SEEN HAS NOT BE EN MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESS EE THOUGH HAS OFFERED A SEMBLANCE OF AN EXPLANATION, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS NOT CARED TO ADDRESS THE EXACT NU MBER OF DELAY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED TH E FACT THAT THERE IS A DELAY AND HAS OFFERED THE FOLLOWING EXPL ANATION : WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT THAT TH E INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 OF SH. ROOP LAI BALEEN HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX BY ORDER DATED 1 9.09.2013 AND THE TIME FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS ALSO EXPIRED. FURTHER WE WARN TO STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED/ LATE RECE IVED NOTICES ISSUED BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR THE AY 2011-12 DUE TO THE TRANSF ER OF ASSESSEE IN BATHINDA BRANCH AND DUE TO COMMUNICATION GAP NOTICES ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT NOT RECEIVED AND THEREFORE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WELL WITH T HE STIPULATED TIME FURTHER YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT THE SAME. 5.1 THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, IT IS SEEN IS GENERAL AND RESTS ON SOME FACTS PROBABLY KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NO T SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY, IT MOST D EFINITELY IS NEITHER SUFFICIENT NOR COMPLETE. AS NOTED ON A R EADING OF THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS ABSENCE OF A RELEVANT DISCUSSION ON FACTS. NOT ONLY THERE IS N O MENTION OF THE EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS NOTICED WHICH WERE REQU IRED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN OTHERWISE ON THE ITA 1369/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 4 OF 5 EXPLANATION OFFERED, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION. INSTEA D OF REFERRING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOTICED, IT IS S EEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL RELYING UPON TH E FACTS AVAILABLE IN THE CASES OF BRIJBANDHU NANDA 44 ITR 6 88 (ORR) AND RAM MOHAN KABRA 257 ITR 773. SINCE THERE IS A WANT OF A PROPER EXPLANATION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, EVE N OTHERWISE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE I MPUGNED ORDER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIREC TION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESS EE SHALL BE SPECIFICALLY PUT TO NOTICE OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE APPEAL WAS NOTICED TO BE DELAYED. IN CASE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE INSUFFICIENT OR INCOMPL ETE, THE CIT(A) IN A FAIR EXERCISE OF POWER IS EXPECTED TO C ONFRONT THIS FACT TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE AND PROVIDE TH E ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE GOOD THE EXPLANATI ON OFFERED BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER. THE ORDER SHALL BE PASSED AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. WHILE PARTING, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSE E IN ITS OWN INTERESTS SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAIRLY AND FULLY AS IN THE EVENTUALITY OF THE ABUSE OF THE TRUST REPOSED, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA 1369/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 5 OF 5 SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH SEPT.,2019. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR