Shri Jitendrabhai Revabhai Chaudhari, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-7(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 185/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 18520514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 250; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) ITA NO.185/AHD/2011 A. Y.: 2004-05 JITENDRA REVABHAI CHAUDHARI, 96/1141, SHIVAM APARTMENT, NAVA VADAJ, AHMEDABAD P. A. NO. ADMPC 2950 Q VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI H. P. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 18-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23-07-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A)-XI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. CAT(A)-XI/442/JUNE-08/08-09 DATED 25-10-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PASSED U/S 1 44 READ WITH SECTION 250 OF THE IT ACT. 2. THIS CASE WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY ALLOWI NG THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN M. A. NO.166/A HD/2011 IN ITA NO.185/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2004-05 VIDE ORDER DATED 25- 05-2012. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN HIS APPE AL. HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS REQUEST FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE ITA NO.185/AHD/2011 (AY 2004-05) JOITENDRABHAI REVABHAI CHAUDHARI VS ITO, W-7(3), AH MEDABAD 2 APPEAL AND RESTORING THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE APPEAL TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 4. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT IS REVEA LED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPLICATION DATED 05-06-2008 SEE KING CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS AS U NDER: 1) THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 9/6/2004 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.64235/- INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.250,690/-. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE IT ACT AND REFUND ORDER OF RS.1055/- WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO ON 24.2.2005. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND N OTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO. 2) THE NOTICE OF HEARING RECEIVED FROM ITO WAS FORW ARDED TO MY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. THE FACT OF NON ATTENDANCE BY MY AR IS NOT KNOWN TO ME. I CAME TO K NOW ONLY WHEN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED TO ME. 3) SINCE LAST 2 TO 3 YEARS I AM MOSTLY RESIDING AT MY NATIVE PLACE AT VISNAGAR. I AM FARMER HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME TAX RULES AND REGULATIONS. I HAVE RELIED ON MY AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BLINDLY. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ACTU AL PROCEEDINGS GOING ON IN MY CASE. 4). DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTE R, I WAS SUFFERING FROM CHICKEN GUINEA DISEASE WHICH COMPEL ME TO TAKE COMPULSORY REST AT MY NATIVE PLACE FOR A LONGE R PERIOD. A CERTIFICATE FROM DOCTOR IN THIS REGARD IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR HONORS KIND CONSIDERATION. 5) AS ADVISED BY MY CONSULTANTS, I HAVE MADE AN APP LICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL TOO H ON. CIT-III, AHMEDABAD, WHO IN TURN ADVISED ME TO FILE THIS APPL ICATION BEFORE YOUR HONOR. COPY OF LETTER REF. NO. HQ-II/MI SC./JRC/2008- 09 DATED 7.5.2008 IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR HONORS KIND CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.185/AHD/2011 (AY 2004-05) JOITENDRABHAI REVABHAI CHAUDHARI VS ITO, W-7(3), AH MEDABAD 3 5. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING TH E REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE REJECTED THE SAME AND DISMISSED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING R EASONS: (I) THERE WAS CASUAL APPROACH ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TOWARDS CONDUCTING INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE W ITH THE LEARNED AO AND EVEN REMAINED ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME IN SPITE OF VARIOUS SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES IS SUED. (II) THE REASON STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NEGLIGENT IS NOT TENABLE SINCE H E HAS FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST HIS REPRESENTATIVE FOR N OT PERUSING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. (III) THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT HE SUFFERED FROM CHICKEN GUINEA IN AUGUST 2005 FOR WHICH A DOCTORS CERTIFIC ATE WAS ISSUED AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF 3 YEARS I.E. ON 04-06 -2008 WHICH APPEARS TO BE AFTERTHOUGHT. 6. THE LEARNED AR REITERATED BEFORE US WHAT WAS SUB MITTED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND PRAYED THAT THE D ELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MA Y BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICA TING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 7. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPP OSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT THE INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL DUE TO THE LA XITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR SEEKING CONDONAT ION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. ITA NO.185/AHD/2011 (AY 2004-05) JOITENDRABHAI REVABHAI CHAUDHARI VS ITO, W-7(3), AH MEDABAD 4 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS BEFORE US. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESS EE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SERIOUSLY CO-OPERATE WITH THE REVENUE IN ITS PROCEEDINGS ON BOTH THE INSTANCES. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FROM THE FACTS BEFORE US WE ARE INCLINED TO TAKE A LENIENT VIEW, FOR THE MATTER TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WE HEREB Y SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REMIT THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON MERITS. WE ALSO HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE REVENUE IN ITS PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT SEEKING UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-07-2012 SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.185/AHD/2011 (AY 2004-05) JOITENDRABHAI REVABHAI CHAUDHARI VS ITO, W-7(3), AH MEDABAD 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 13-07-2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 13-07-12 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: