TRIVENI MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T.-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1859/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 185919914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MALLIKARJUN UTTURE
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - E BENCH. .. , ! , BEFORE S/SH.I.P.BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.1859/MUM/2011, ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 M/S TRIVENI MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., A-2, BANDRA LIBERTY CHS 98/B HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W),MUMBAI-400050 VS ACIT CIRCLE 4, MUMBAI. PAN: AABCT4249C ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) '() '() '() '() * * * * / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN + * / REVENUE BY : SHRI MALLIKARJUN UTTURE ' ' ' ' + ++ + ), ), ), ), / DATE OF HEARING : 16-06-2014 -.# + ), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-06-2014 ' ' ' ' , 1961 + ++ + 254 )1( )/) )/) )/) )/) 0 0 0 0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED.21.12.2010 OF THE CIT(A )-8,MUMBAI, ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CO MMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN DISMISSING THE APPELLANTS APPEAL IN LIMINI. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CO MMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT DID FILE AN APP LICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE APPEAL EXPLAINING THE DELAY DUE TO CERTAIN URGE NT, UNAVOIDABLE DOMESTIC MATTER OF THE PERSON HANDLING THE MATTER. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN HIS FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE APPELLANTS PLEA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS THE SAM E WAS NOT DELIBERATE AND UNINTENTIONAL. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS FOR THE SET-ASIDE OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER WITH THE REQUEST TO DIRECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING AND STOCK BROKING,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17. 10.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 24.67 LAKHS.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ON 30.11.2009,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 37,62,560/-.DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO MADE CERTA IN ADDITIONS UNDER THE HEAD VSAT CHARGES, NSE PENALTY AND BAD-DEBTS. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). 3. AS PER THE FAA APPEAL WAS FILED ON 18.02.2010.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,HE HELD THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEYOND T HE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHILE FILING THE 2 ITA NO. 1859/MUM/2011 M/S TRIVENI MANAGEMENT CONSULTA NCY SERVICES LTD. APPEAL OR SUBSEQUENTLY. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO STATE ANY REASONABLE CAUSE THAT PREVENTED IT FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITH IN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED AND THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE.HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIM INE. 4. BEFORE US,AR STATED THAT AN APPLICATION WAS FILED B EFORE THE FAA FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, THAT AS PER THE ORDER-SHEET NOTING DT. 21.12.2010 ASSESS EE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD,THAT FAA PASSED HIS ORDER ON 21.12.2 010, THAT MATTER WAS NOT DECIDED ON MERITS. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE FAA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT,BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE A DISPUTE ABOUT THE FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE D ELAY.WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT FAA SHOULD HAVE PASSED A REASONED ORDER DEALING WITH THE ISSUE S RAISED BEFORE HIM.CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE, WE ARE REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DI RECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF APPEAL AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT WERE R AISED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 1)2 '() + VAKR% VAKR% VAKR% VAKR% 3 + ) 45. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JUNE,2014 . 0 + -.# 6 7' 16 TWU , 201 4 . + / 8 SD/- SD/- ( .. / I.P. BANSAL) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 7' /DATE: 16.06 . 2014. SK 0 0 0 0 + ++ + &)9 &)9 &)9 &)9 : 9#) : 9#) : 9#) : 9#) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ; < , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ; < 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 9=/ &)' , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / 1 '9) '9) '9) '9) &) &)&) &) //TRUE COPY// 0' / BY ORDER, > / 4 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI