A.Jebasundari L/R of Sri. Antony Albin Gilton, Tuticorin V. ITO, Tuticorin

ITA 1761/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 176121714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1984-1985
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 54; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761 AND 1762/MD S/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1980-81, 81-82, 82-83, 83-84, 84- 85 AND 85-86 A. JEBASUNDARI, L/R OF SRI ANTONY ALBIN GILTON, SIVANKOIL STREET, OOTAPIDARAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. [PAN:AGIPJ0804B] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), THOOTHUKUDI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2012 ORDER PER BENCH THESE SIX APPEALS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE; ARISE FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) I, MADURAI DATED 31.05.2012 IN ITA NO. 0181 TO 0186/07-08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 AND 198 5-86 RESPECTIVELY; IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. 2. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE NOTICE THA T THE INSTANT APPEALS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1757 1757 1757 1757- -- -1762 1762 1762 1762/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 HAVE BEEN FILED AFTER DELAY OF 42 DAYS IN FILING. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CONDONATION PETITION IN THE SHAPE OF AFFIDAVIT STAT ING THEREIN THAT THE DELAY CAUSED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FACT THAT HER REPRESE NTATIVE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A) AND ALSO DID NOT DELIVER HER THE PAPE RS LYING WITH HIM FOR FILING OF THE INSTANT CASES. TODAY, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE NOTICE THA T AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED IN THE INSTANT CASES ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTING THAT SHE IS SUFFERING FROM HIGH FEVER. W E HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION AS WELL AS PETITION SEEKING CO NDONATION OF DELAY. SINCE NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAS PA SSED A DETAILED ORDER, WE PROPOSE TO DECIDE ALL THE CASES AFTER REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE DR, WHO HAS OPPOSED CONDONATI ON OF DELAY AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE CONDONATION PE TITION. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS A WIDOW, WHO HAS FILED APPEALS HERS ELF AND SHE HAS SOLEMNLY STATED THAT RECORD OF THE CASES WAS NOT HA NDED OVER ON TIME, SHE COULD NOT INSTITUTE THE CASES WITHIN THE LIMITATION WHICH PRESCRIBED APPEARS TO BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDING LY, WE ALLOW THE CONDONATION PETITION AND PROPOSE TO CONSIDER THE ME RITS OF THE CASE. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF ALL THE CASES ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE SMT. A. JEBASUNDARI IS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY LATE ANTONY ALBIN GILTON. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1757 1757 1757 1757- -- -1762 1762 1762 1762/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 ON 31.07.1984, THE DEPARTMENT HAD CONDUCTED SURVEY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI A. KOILPILLAI NADAR LEADING TO RECOVERY OF PROMOTES AN D DOCUMENTS QUA VARIOUS INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE SEARCHED PERSON AND HIS FAM ILY MEMBERS INCLUDING HIS WIFE, SIX SONS (INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE), FIVE D AUGHTERS, THREE SISTERS AND ONE BROTHER-IN-LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED V ARIOUS PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF THE SEARCHED PERSONS AND PROCEEDED TO QUAN TIFY THE ASSESSABLE INCOME SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES FATH ER AND PROTECTIVELY IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN FURTHERANCE TO THE SAME, HE ISS UED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.01.1984, WHICH WAS RESPONDED TO BY W AY OF FILING OF RETURN FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ON 12.12.1985 . ALONG WITH RETURNED INCOME QUA ASSESSMENT YEARS 1980-81 TO 1983-84, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREAFTER, THE ASSES SING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPEALS F OR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHICH WERE REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). THEREAFTE R, IN APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF CHENNAI ITAT REST ORED THE FILE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2007 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 2 54 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE SAME WAS COMPLETED AS A P ROTECTIVE MEASURE IN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1757 1757 1757 1757- -- -1762 1762 1762 1762/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 VIEW OF SECTION 153(2A). 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE CIT(A). IT IS NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING CASE LAW OF HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE B EEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN THE CAPACITY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE DULY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AN D FIND THAT THE ONLY FINDING IS THAT MANY LETTERS HAD BEEN SENT TO THE A SSESSEE SO AS TO PURSUE THE CASES. HOWEVER, NOBODY HAD TURNED UP BEFORE CIT (A). IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED MERELY BECAUSE THE CONNECTED ASSESSE ES HAD WITHDRAWN APPEALS AND PREFERRED REVISION UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENGAGED AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE, WHO HAD FAILED TO APPEAR. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UNDER CHALLENGE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS TO BE CORRECT. THE CIT(A) HAS DULY MARKED ATTENDANCE OF ASSESSEES REP RESENTATIVE NAMELY SHRI P.S. THANGARAJ, ITP. BUT, HE IS SHOWN TO HAVE REPRESENTED THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGED AR WHO DID NOT PURSUE THE ASSESSEES CASE D ELIGENTLY, THE CIT(A) I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1757 1757 1757 1757- -- -1762 1762 1762 1762/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 5 HAS NOT PROCEEDED ON CORRECT ASSUMPTION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE CASES. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGED A REPR ESENTATIVE TO PURSUE THE APPEALS BEFORE CIT(A) WHICH IT ITSELF INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. FA CED WITH THIS SITUATION AND IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT A PPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO REHEAR ALL THE CASES AFRESH ON MERITS AND PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, ALL SIX APPE ALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12 TH OF DECEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 12.12.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.