Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
153624514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-09-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
18-09-2013
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
11-07-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1526 TO 1532/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2008-09) MRS. VANDANA RAJIV BHALE BUNGALOW, NEAR PINNAC GANGOTRI, AUNDH, PUNE 411 007. PAN : AFVPB0335F . APPELLANT VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), PUNE . RESPONDENT ITA NOS.1533 TO 1539/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2008-09) MS. NEHA RAJIV BHALE C/O MS. NEHA THAKKAR, FLAT NO. 402, SHREE GOMATI SOCIETY, GIRIDHAR THAKKAR ROAD, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE 411 001 PAN : AKSPB2808D . APPELLANT VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MR. KISHORE PHADKE RESPONDENT BY : MR. S. K. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 18-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-09-2013 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE AFORESAID CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATED TO TWO ASSE SSEES BELONGING TO THE SAME FAMILY AND INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE, THEREFO RE, THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NOS.1526 TO 1532/PN/2012 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1539/PN/2012 2. ITA NO. 1526/PN/2012 IN THE CASE OF MRS. VANDANA RAJIV BHALE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS TAKEN AS A LEAD CASE. TH IS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-CENTRAL, PUNE DATED 18.04.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 3. THE PRELIMINARY POINT RAISED IN THIS APPEAL, AND WHICH IS COMMON TO ALL THE OTHER CAPTIONED APPEALS, IS THAT THE CIT(A) UNJ USTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY TREATING IT AS NOT ADMITTED WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN BRIEF, THE FACTS AR E THAT CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF T HE ACT IN THE GROUP OF PRIDE PURPLE & PRATHAM OF PUNE ON 11.01.2008, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER INITIATED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 153A(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A REA D WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT DATED 31.12.2009 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8, 00,000/-, WHICH WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND ACCORDINGLY THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. THE CIT(A) HAS C ONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH WAS ACCOMPAN IED WITH THE FORM NO. 35 I.E. MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH COMMUNICATION, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, HE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT PREVENTED BY ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN P RESCRIBED PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY, HE PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE APPEAL AS N OT ADMITTED, AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.1526 TO 1532/PN/2012 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1539/PN/2012 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT AFFORD ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BE FORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOT ADMITTED. THE LEARNED COUN SEL POINTED OUT THAT THE AVERMENTS IN THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY W HICH ACCOMPANIED WITH THE APPEAL MEMO WERE GENUINE AND IN ANY CASE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. IT WAS, TH EREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A LLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THE MATTER IS RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPL AIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARIN G FOR THE REVENUE, WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HAS NOT S ERIOUSLY DISPUTED THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE OF BEING SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. IN TERMS OF SECTION 249(2) OF THE ACT, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A) WAS TO BE PRESENTED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE O F DEMAND RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 249 EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALSO TO ADMIT AN APPEAL AFTE R THE EXPIRATION OF THE SAID PERIOD IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT H AD SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM WITHIN THE STIPULA TED PERIOD. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESENT TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 2 49(2) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED ITA NOS.1526 TO 1532/PN/2012 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1539/PN/2012 THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED. PERTINENTLY, IN COMIN G TO SUCH CONCLUSION, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRED THAT A SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. FROM TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS AB SENCE. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE. IN THE ENSUING REMANDED PROCEEDING, THE CIT(A) SHOULD ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN PRESENTING THE APPEAL AND THEREAFTER ADJUD ICATE THE SAME AS PER LAW. 9. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR RE MANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) IS NO REFLECTION ON THE MERIT OF ASSESSEES REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL ADJUDICATE ON THE SAME UNINFLUENCED BY ANY OF OUR O BSERVATIONS IN THE INSTANT ORDER. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO .1526/PN/2012 IN THE CASE OF MRS. VANDANA RAJIV BHALE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2002-03 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS ABOVE. 11. IT WAS A COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE AFORESAID PRELIMINARY POINT STANDS ON SIMILAR FOOTING IN ALL THE OTHER CAPTIONED APPEALS, THEREFORE, OUR AFORESAID DECISION IN ITA NO. 1526/P N/2012 IN THE CASE OF MRS. VANDANA RAJIV BHALE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 SHA LL APPLY MUTATIS- MUTANDIS IN ALL OTHER APPEALS ALSO. 12. RESULTANTLY, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS ABOVE. ITA NOS.1526 TO 1532/PN/2012 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1539/PN/2012 ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIE S. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-CENTRAL, PUNE; 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE
