M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, Bellary V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 180/BANG/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6431 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A NO.180/BANG/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD., NO.123, VEERANA GOWDA COLONY, GANESH NAGAR, BELLARY-583 103. PAN AAACO 5753 D VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI MAYANK JAIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDNET BY : SHRI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 08-09-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-09-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST O RDER DATED 13/12/2019 PASSED BY LD. CIT (A)-11, BANGALOR E FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT DECIDING ISSUES ON ME RITS. HE SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CI T(A) WITH DELAY OF 57 DAYS. HE SUBMITTED THAT, LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND REJECTED THE APPEAL. PAGE 2 OF 5 IT(TP)A NO.180/BANG/2020 3. BEFORE US, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, REASON ATTRIBUT ED FOR DELAY WAS FOUND TO BE VAGUE BY LD.CIT(A). THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UNREASONED, AS NOTHING IS SPECIFIED AS TO WHY EXPLANATION FURNISH ED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 4. BEFORE US, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, DELAY OCCASION ED TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT INTENTIONAL AN D DELIBERATE, AND THAT, ASSESSEE WAS PRECLUDED FROM T RAVELLING TO BELLARY, DUE TO CONDITION IMPOSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT , WHILE GRANTING BAIL. HE SUBMITTED THAT, BOTH DIRE CTORS OF ASSESSEE WERE PRECLUDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO TRAVEL TO BELLARY, AND THEREFORE APPEAL COULD NOT B E FILED IN TIME. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT.DR SUBMITTED THAT, DELAY HAS NOT BEEN CONDONED BY LD.CIT(A), AS NO EVIDENCE WERE FILED BY ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SID ES, IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST . KATJI & ORS REPORTED IN (1987) 167 ITR 471 HELD THAT, WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIC E DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED, THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAV E VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE NON-DELIBERAT E DELAY. HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF C ULPABLE NEGLIGENCE OR ON A MALAFIDE, AND THAT LITIGATION DO ES NOT PAGE 3 OF 5 IT(TP)A NO.180/BANG/2020 STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY, IN FACT HE IS ON SERIOUS RISK. 7. IN VARIOUS CASES HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURTS TIME AND AGAIN LAID DOWN PRINCIPLES THAT, THERE SHOULD BE A LIBERAL, PRAGMATIC, JUSTICE ORIENTED AN D NON- PEDANTIC APPROACH WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE TERM SUFFICIENT CAUSE S HOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY AND THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BE ING PARAMOUNT AND PIVOTAL, TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION SHOU LD NOT BE GIVEN UNDUE EMPHASIS. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ABOVE PRINCIPLES, WE COND ONE THE DELAY CAUSED BY ASSESSEE IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD .CIT(A). WE REMAND THE CASE BACK TO LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ALLEGED BY ASSESSEE ON MERITS. LD.CIT(A) IS DIRECTE D TO PASS A REASONED ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AN D EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM . NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE GRANTED TO ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEPT, 2020. SD/- SD/- (A.K GARODIA) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 21 ST SEPT., 2020. /VMS/ PAGE 4 OF 5 IT(TP)A NO.180/BANG/2020 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. BANGALORE. PAGE 5 OF 5 IT(TP)A NO.180/BANG/2020 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -09-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -09-2020 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -09-2020 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -09-2020 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -09-2020 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -09-2020 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -09-2020 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS