M/s. Amutham Enterprises, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 1894/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8216 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 40 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-1970
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEO RGE, A.M. I.T.A. NO.1894/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. AMUTHAM ENTERPRISES, 31-B, MANIAM VELAPPAR STREET, K.K. PUDUR, SAIBABA COLONY, COIMBATORE. [PAN: AACFA3373N] VS . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II(2), COIMBATORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. BASKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I, COIMBATORE DATED 26.08.2009 RELEVANT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREBY THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN CHALL ENGED BY THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE POINT OF DELAY BY NOT ACCEPTING THE CONDONATION PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DA TED 01.03.2010 AND AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER IN APPEAL CAME TO BE RECALLED IN WHICH THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO FIXED ON 13.09.2010. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE B Y 3 DAYS, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL FILED CONDONATION PETITION STATI NG THEREIN THAT THE FIRST APPEAL ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 14.10.2009, AGAINST WHICH APP EAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 14.12.2009, BUT STATED TO HAVE BEEN AC TUALLY FILED ON 16.12.2009. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE SENT THE APPEAL PAPER BY PO ST WITH A COVERING LETTER DATED 11.12.2009 FROM ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AND UNFORTUNA TELY, THE APPEAL PAPERS I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 2 REACHED AFTER FIVE DAYS. SO, THERE IS A POSTAL DELA Y, WHICH IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE, THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY. 4. AGAINST THIS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY, THE LD. DR DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT AND OTHERWISE ALSO DELAY I S ON ACCOUNT OF TIME TAKEN BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR HEARING. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARG UED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN THE DELAY IN SUPPORT OF THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BEFORE HIM AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY WHILE CO NSIDERING THE CONDONATION PETITION. SINCE LAW PROVIDES FOR AFFORDING SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY, WHICH WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE DISM ISSING THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, NOT ONLY STATUTORY PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, B UT THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW OF JUSTICE ALSO, IT WAS THUS PLEADED TH AT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK ON HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE CONDONATION PETITION AFTER GIVING DUE OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND PLEADED FOR ITS CONFIRMATION ON THE GROUND THAT EVEN IF OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED, BUT HIS CONDONATION PETITION HAS DULY BEEN CONSIDERED BY TH E LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK ON T HE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CONSIDERING THE CONDONATION PETITION AFRESH BY GIVI NG OPPORTUNITY, HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION. I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 I.T.A. NO. 1894/MDS/09 3 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. NO DOUBT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED T HE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THA T OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE REJECTING THE CONDO NATION PETITION AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE AND TO HAVE FAIR PLAY IN THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO REDECIDE THE CONDONATION PETITION AS WELL AS ENTERTAINMENT OF APPEAL AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE GETS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEAR ING ON 13.09.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 13.09.2010. VM/- COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)- /CIT, /DR