M/S Satav Constructions Pvt Ltd, Pune V. ACIT CIR 3, Pune

ITA 154/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9710 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.154/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06) SATAV CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 01, RAJA APARTMENTS, LAKAKI ROAD, MODEL COLONY, PUNE. .. APPELLANT VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE. .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.SRINIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.P.SINGH, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 09.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2012 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IN REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HI M. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT TAKING RELEVANT FACTS INTO ACCOUNT WHILE REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AND IN DECI DING THE MATTER ON INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN APPLYING IN CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE C IT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DELAY 2 OCCURRED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF HIS AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT ASSE SSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR LAPSE ON THE PART OF HIS AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE. SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE CONDONE THE DELAY. SINC E CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT WHICH AMOUNTS TO NOT AD JUDICATING THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM. TAKING OVER ALL VIEW OF THE SITU ATION, WE RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. WE ARE RESTORING THE APPEAL TO CIT(A) WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO MERIT OF ISSUE AT HAND AS WE HAD NO OCCASION TO LOO K INTO IT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YAD AV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 28 TH AUGUST, 2012 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE. 3. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE. 4. THE CIT-II, PUNE. 5. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.