M/s Jai Durga Cement Pvt. Ltd, Samba V. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

ITA 154/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5554 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHARAM SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 154 & 155/(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 PAN: AABCJ6112E M/S JAI DURGA CEMENT PVT. LTD., INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, SAMBA. VS. VS. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 1; JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J. S. BHASIN (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. DHARAM SINGH (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 24.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.07.2017 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A), JAMMU, BOTH DATED 29.12.2016 FOR ASST. YEA RS: 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. THE LD. DR, AT THE OUTSET, STATED THAT DUE TO SH ORTAGE OF TIME THE APPEALS COULD NOT BE PREPARED AND THEREFORE, ADJOURNMENT MA Y BE GRANTED. 3. THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT TH ESE ARE PENALTY APPEALS AND WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BEYOND THE P RESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME AND LD. CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE REASONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WERE NOT REASONABLE AND HAD NO T DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND IT WAS PRAYED THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO HEAR THE APPEALS ON MERITS. THEREFORE THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF LD. DR WAS REJECTED AND LD. AR WAS ASKED TO PROCEED. ITA NOS.154&155 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 2 4. THE LD. AR, IN THIS RESPECT SUBMITTED THAT THE R EASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS WERE EXPLAINED TO THE LD. CIT(A), AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WERE INVITED TO PAGE 2 OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. THE L D. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE RESIDING AT DELHI. CLERICAL STAFF AT THE FACTORY PREMISES HAD DULY INFORMED THE C.A. OF THE COMPANY AND THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS HAD OCCURRED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF THE C.A. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A DULY ATTEST ED AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DIREC TED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 5. THE LD. DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSITION OF LD. AR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS B EFORE LD. CIT(A) ARE BELATED BUT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HEAR THE APPEALS AND DECIDE THE ISSUES ON ME RITS AND THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERI TS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE DISPOS AL OF APPEALS AT THE EARLIEST. 7. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24. 07.2017. SD/- SD/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 24/07/2017 GP/SR.PS/ ITA NOS.154&155 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER