Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78284 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-07-2014
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
25-07-2014
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
10-03-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 160 TO 163 /JODH/2014 (A.Y S . 200 3 - 04 & 2007 - 08 ) URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST , VS. DCIT , CIRCLE - 2, NOW JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , JODHPUR. JODHPUR . PAN NO. AAAAU 2527 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 25 / 0 7 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /0 7 /201 4 . O R D E R PER BENCH TH ESE FOUR APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S EACH DATED 30 /0 1 /201 4 OF L D . CIT(A), J ODHPUR . SINCE THE APPEALS RELATE TO THE ONE ASSESSEE AND THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER: 2 2 IN I.T.A.NO. 160 & 162 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE QUANTUM ADDITION WHILE IN IT.A.NO. 161 & 163, THE PE NALTY SUSTAINED U/S 271(1)(D) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED . MAIN GRIEVA N CE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS RELATE TO THE REJECTION OF PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS IN LIMINI . 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) ALONG WITH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT CONTINUED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF EX E MPTION UNDER THE ACT AND PRAYER WAS MADE FOR DROPPING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT, BU T SUCH A PRAYER WAS NOT ACCEPTED. THERE AFTER , THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHEREIN INTERIM STAY WAS GRANTED ON 05/10/2009 IN RESPECT OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS I N PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT . T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE APPEALS ON THE GR O UND THAT ITS WRIT PETITION WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND ON BONAFIDE PLEA THAT IT CONTINUED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 10(20) OF TH E ACT. THE 3 LD. CIT(A) , HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT IGNORANCE OF PROVISIONS OF LAW WAS NO T AN EXCUSE . REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHOG MAL CHIRANJI LAL VS. CIT REPORTED AT 257 ITR 51. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - 1. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, BHARATPUR OIL MILLS LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED AT 118 ITR 1021 (RAJ) (HC) . 2. S.R. KALANI VS. ITO REPORTED AT 132 ITR 600 (MP) (HC) 3. UNION OF INDIA VS. BRIJ LAL PRABHUDAYAL REPORTED AT 1999 AIR 216 (RAJ.)(HC) 4. CLASSIC ISPAT PVT. LTD. VS. JANAK STEEL TUBES LTD. REPORTED AT 93 COMP. CASE 165 ) ACCORDINGLY, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINI . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, BELATED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE FILED AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 272B, 271(1)(B) AND 271F OF THE ACT, WERE ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , COPY OF THE ORDER S DATED 03/03/2011 WERE FURNISHED WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS STATED THAT SINCE THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONE D THE DELAY. 4 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BEL A TED, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEALS AND DISMISSING THE SAME IN LIMINI . 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BELATED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ADMITTED AND DELAY WAS CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE SEPARATE ORDER S EACH DATED 3/03/2011 IN APPEAL NOS. 441 - 443 /2009 - 10 WHEREIN RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS UNDER: - I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PETITION FILED ON 28/02/2011, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASONS IN NOT PRESENTING APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED IN THE PR OVISION OF SEC. 249(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THE DEL A Y IN FILING OF APPEAL IS HEREBY CONDONED IN TERMS OF SECTION 249(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 7 . SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A CONTRADICTORY STAND IN RESPECT OF THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AGAIN ST THE ORDERS OF PENALTY U/S 272 B , 271(1)( B ) & 271 F OF THE ACT, WE THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH 5 ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SHOULD ALSO KEEP IN MIN D THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER S DATED 03/03/2011 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 441 - 443/2009 - 10 WHEREIN DELAY HAS BEEN CONDONED BY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS PLAUSIBLE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JULY , 201 4) . SD/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH JULY , 201 4 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , ITAT, JODHPUR .
Mehul