DR. VIVEK G. BHARTU, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1868/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0613 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR VIVEK BHARTU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1868/MUM./2017 TO 1873/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 0 4 TO 2008 - 09 ) DR. VIVEK G. BHARTU GROUND FLOOR, URMIGAR BUILDING PLAT NO.764E, TILAK ROAD PARSEE COLONY DADAR (E) MUMBAI 400 014 PAN:AACPB7638P . APPELLANT V/S ITO WD 8 (3)(3) MUMBAI 400 020 . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. DR. VIVEK BHARTU REVENUE BY : SHRI. SUMIT KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 01.06.2017 DATE OF ORDER - 01 .0 6 .2017 O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA T HESE ARE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT - A FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. AT THE OUTSET ASSESSEE IS AG G RIEVED THAT THE LEARNED CIT - A HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY RANGING FROM 96 DAYS TO 108 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND HAS HENCE DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS. 3. I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT - A ITA NO. 1868/MUM/2017 TO 1873/MUM/2017 DR. VIVEK G. BHARTU 2 THAT HE WAS ADVISED BY THE COUNSEL NOT TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE I.T ACT. 4. L ATER ON AFTER PROPER ADVICE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEALS WHICH RESULTED IN A DELAY OF APPROXIMATELY 3 MONTHS. LEARNED CIT - A HAD NOT CONDONED THE DELAY CONSIDERING THAT THE REASON ATTRIBUTED FOR THE DELAY ARE TOO GENERAL. 5. UPON HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSING THE RECORDS I FIND THAT AS EXPOUNDED BY THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT A DISTINCTION HAS TO BE MADE BETWEEN A SMALL DELAY AND INORDINA TE DELAY. CONSIDERATION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE HAS ALSO TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THE PRESENT CASE ON THE PRISM OF AFORESAID EXPOSITIONS IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE SMALL DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT - A DESERVED TO BE CONDONED, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED FOR THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I CONDONE THE DELAY AND REMIT THE ISSUE RAISED ON MERITS OF THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT - A. LEARNED CIT - A SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUES RAISED ON M ERITS AND PASS SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NO. 1868/MUM/2017 TO 1873/MUM/2017 DR. VIVEK G. BHARTU 3 6. IN THE RESULT THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 1 .0 6 .2017 S D / - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 0 1 .0 6 .2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER KARUNA SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI