M/s. Model Chit Corpn. Ltd., Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1391/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66144 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M DAYASAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P JITENDRA KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1391/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. MODEL CHIT CORP. LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AABCM3920B VS. DEPUTY CIT CIRCLE-16(2) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI P. JITENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SRI M. DAYASAGAR DATE OF HEARING: 1 9 .07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.08.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-V, HYDERABAD DATED 2 7.5.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE'S MAIN GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL IS WIT H REGARD TO DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT ADMI TTING THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OTHER GROUNDS RELATING T O MERIT OF THE ADDITIONS AND LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ARE THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 135 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FORGOT TO INFORM THE MANAGEMENT. THEREAFTER THE ACCOUNTANT WENT ON LONG LEAVE AND CAME BACK ONLY IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 2009. IN THIS REGARD, TWO AFFIDAVITS ONE DATED 15.5.2009 AND ANOTHER DATED 19 .4.2011 WERE I.T.A. NO. 1391/HYD/2011 M/S. MODEL CHIT CORP LTD. ===================== 2 FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) FROM ONE MR. NIRANJAN, ACCO UNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) THERE IS A DISCREPANCY AND DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE TWO AFFIDAVITS. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DIFFER ENCE IN SIGNATURE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) IN THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.5 .2009 IT WAS STATED THAT THE ACCOUNTANT FOUND THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER COPY AS SOON AS HE JOINED OFFICE AND IMMEDIATELY INTIMATED THE SAME TO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE NEXT AFFIDAVIT, HE NARRATED THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE JOINED BACK IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2009 BUT DID NOT INTIMATE AN Y ONE ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNTIL MAY, 2009. THE ACCOUNTA NT HAS ALSO STATED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT HE IS HAVING NO KNOWLE DGE OF INCOME- TAX ACT. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE PERSON OF SU CH COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SUCH IMPORTANT ASPECT TO A PERS ON WHO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF TAX MATTERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT( A) NOT CONDONED THE DELAY OF 135 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND DISMISSED THE SAME. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FI LED TWO AFFIDAVITS FROM ITS ACCOUNTANT AND THE ACCOUNTANT O WNED THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT HE HAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE KNOWL EDGE OF THE MANAGEMENT ABOUT THE SERVICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THIS WAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY THE ACCOUNTANT IN HIS AFFIDAVI T. THE CIT(A) DOUBTED THE SIGNATURE IN THE AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS T HE CONTENTS THEREIN. IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN REJECTING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ACCOUNTANT WITHOUT CROSS-EXAMI NING THE DEPONENT IN THE AFFIDAVITS. THE PERSON WHO GAVE TH E AFFIDAVIT WAS REQUIRED TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED BEFORE REJECTING THE SAME. IT I.T.A. NO. 1391/HYD/2011 M/S. MODEL CHIT CORP LTD. ===================== 3 WAS NOT OPEN TO THE CIT(A) TO REJECT THE AFFIDAVITS SUMMARILY IN SURMISES AND CONJECTURES MANNER. HE SHOULD EXAMINE THE STATEMENT GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT BY CROSS-EXAMINING THE PERSON WHO MADE THE AFFIDAVIT. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JU DGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREKH & CO. VS. CIT, 30 ITR 181 FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE ARE INCLINED TO RE MIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE PARTI ES WHO HAVE MADE THE AFFIDAVITS BEFORE HIM AND THEREAFTER DECID E THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2012. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH AUGUST, 2012 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. MODEL CHIT CORP LTD., MODEL HOUSE, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT (A) - V, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT - IV , HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD