Sejal Gopalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad V. ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 1486/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2738 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ./ I.T.A. NO. 1486/AHD/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SEJAL GOPALBHAI SHAH 11, CHARANKRUPA SOCIETY, NEAR SHIVRANJANI CROSS ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD - 380015 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 7, AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AGDPS3217Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. DEV, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 30/10/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02/11/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 28.07.2015 ARISING IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 14.03.2013 PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ITA NO. 1486/AHD/18 [SEJAL G. SHAH VS. ACIT] A.Y. 2004-05 - 2 - 2. BY WAY OF ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CH ALLENGES IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.17,70,675/- U NDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO IMPUGNED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY EXERCISING ITS JUDICIAL DISCRETION AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED AR REFERRED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BELATED APPEAL FOR THE INSTA NT AY 2004-05. THE LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT THE DELAY OF 109 DAYS I N FILING THE APPEAL HAS OCCASIONED DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS, THE PROOF OF WHICH HAS BEEN ANNEXED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AR THEREAFT ER POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS TOO AS TABULATED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER ITSELF OWING TO THE SAME REASONS OF MEDICAL EMERGENCY. THE LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR DELAY WAS OCCASIONED RELEVANT TO AY 20 02-03 ALSO WHERE SUCH DELAY OF SIMILAR PERIOD WAS VIEWED LIBERALLY A ND THE DELAY WAS CONDONED BY THE CIT(A) HOLDING DIFFERENT CHARGE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POIN TED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO WARRANT FOR THE PRESENT CIT(A) TO TAKE A DIF FERENT STAND ON IDENTICAL FACTS. 4. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REFUSED THE CONDONE THE DELAY ON THE GROUND NO SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED. WHILE WE AGREE THAT CONDONATION IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT, WE ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT NO SERIOUS PREJUDI CE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE BY SUCH SMALL DELAY. WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED BONAFIDE REASONS FOR DELAY ON ACCOUNT OF MEDICAL ITA NO. 1486/AHD/18 [SEJAL G. SHAH VS. ACIT] A.Y. 2004-05 - 3 - EXIGENCIES WHICH GROUND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CI T(A) IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY CAUS E FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT AND INCONSISTENT STAND IN THE MATTER. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT HAVE EXERCISED ITS JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE. THEREFORE , WE SET ASIDE THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR EFFECTIVE HEARING ON MERITS BY CONDONING THE DELAY. NEEDLESS TO SAY, ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON MERITS ARE KEPT OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION BY CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL DISPOSE O F THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 02/11/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02/11/2 018