M/s Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Moradabad V. ITO, Moradabad

ITA 1884/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6961 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D NEW DELHI BEFORE H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1884 /DEL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI SAMBHAL, MORADABAD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORADABAD GIR/PAN : AAAAK6125F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. AKARSH GARG, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. AMIT JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 19.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.07.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), BAREILLY, DATED 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT MANDI SAMITI WITHOUT ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELL ANT MANDI SAMITI ON 21.03.2012, WHICH ON BEING PERUSED ARE SELF SERVING. 3. BECAUSE AS OF NOW, THE APPELLANT MANDI SAMITI HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1.4.2002 BY THE LD. CIT, MORADABAD, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THIS APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 147 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS: 2. ON RECEIPT OF THE APPEAL ORDER, THE SECRETARY OF THE APPELLANT MANDI SAMITI HAD SENT THE ORDER TO SRI SANJAY KUMAR CA (AT DELHI). IT WAS PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSEE SAMITI THAT WHATEVER STEPS WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE TAKEN, THE SAME WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL. 2 ITA NO. 1884/DEL/2014 AY: 2007 - 08 3. HOWEVER, UNAWARE OF THE FACT THAT SHRI SANJAY K UMAR HAD SHIFTED HIS OFFICE PREMISES FROM SOUTH EXTENSION TO JANAK PURI, THE SAID ORDER WAS SENT ON THE OLD ADDRESS (SOUTH EXTENSION) THE APPELLANT WAS IN AN IMPRESSION THAT THE NECESSARY REMEDY HAS BEEN TAKEN. 4. IT WAS ONLY IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, WHEN THE ASSESSE E SAMITI'S ACCOUNTANT, SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA, TRIED TO APPROACH ITS COUNSEL, HE GOT TO KNOW THAT SHRI SANJAY KUMAR HAS SHIFTED HIS OFFICE PREMISES TO JANAKPURI. THEREAFTER, SECRETARY OF THE APPELLANT MANDI SAMITI SOUGHT AN APPOINTMENT WITH SRI SAN JAY KUMAR CA FOR 22.10.2013 AND IN THE MEAN TIME DEPOSITED THE CHALLAN OF RS.10,000 ON ___. 10.2013, SO AS TO FILE THE APPEAL AND GOT THE SAME PREPARED ON 22.10.2013. 5. IT IS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS AFORESAID, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. WE H AVE BEEN ADVISED TO SUBMIT THAT IT IS A FIT CASE, WHERE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. THEREFORE, WE AR E SUBMITTING HEREWITH AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253, WHICH IS BEING FILED NOW WITH A DELAY OF NEARLY 147 DAYS, WITH THIS PETITION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY. 2.1 THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE IN THE APPLICATION AND REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEAL. 2.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OPPOS E TO THE PRAYER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEALS COULD NOT BE FILED WELL WITHI N TIME AS THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL SHIFTED HIS OFFICE FROM SOUTH EXTENSION TO JANAK PURI AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SENT THE ORDER AT TH E OLD ADDRESS (SOUTH EXTENSION). THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 147 DAYS IN FILLING THE APPEAL. 3. NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO HIM AND THE CASE WAS DECIDED EX - PARTE. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE CASE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT AFTER BEING PROVIDED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF CHANGE OF OFFICE OF COUNSEL, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO. 1884/DEL/2014 AY: 2007 - 08 WAS DECIDED EX - PARTE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DUE TO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF TH E COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER THE OPPORTUNITY OF GETTING JUSTICE. THEREFORE, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FOR PASSING ORDER AFRESH, AFTER PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED THAT HE WOULD NOT ABUSE THE PROCESS OF LAW AND WOULD ALSO NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS. 6. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 T H JULY , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8 T H JULY , 2016 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI