Pahwa Chains Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 192/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90140 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.192/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) PAHWA CHAINS PVT. LTD., VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PLOT NO.72, INDUSTRIAL AREA I, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACP9911A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL BATRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.05.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH DATED 15.12.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT EARLIER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.8.2013 IN LIMINE HOLD ING IT TO BE TIME BARRED BECAUSE NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF 2 THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., CHAN DIGARH BENCH AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 IN ITA NO.1013/2013 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE CONDONATION APPLICATI ON FOR LATE FILING OF APPEAL AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON ME RITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE APPEAL THEREAFTER FIXED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLIC ATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE A PPEAL IS LATE BY 52 DAYS AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DIREC TOR OF THE COMPANY WAS UNDER MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT NO APPEA L LIES AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT WAS ONLY A FTER DUE CONSULTATION WITH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THE APPEAL WAS FILED. THE SAME FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN S UBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR IN AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE I. T.A.T. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN IN LIMINE. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE EARLIER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT APPEARANCE HAD BEEN PUT UP BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON VARIOUS DATES AND THE MATT ER WAS DISCUSSED ON MERITS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ). HOWEVER, ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTE D OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE APPEAL WAS LATE BY 52 DAYS. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO ALLOW A NY 3 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE SAME FACTS ARE CONTAINE D IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, COPY OF W HICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON EARLIER OCCASION ON MERITS. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE B ACKGROUND OF THESE FACTS VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) WITH DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE CONDONATION APPLICATION F OR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AN D THEREAFTER TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THUS, IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.12.2013 THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY HAV E A CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND, THEREFORE, ONLY IN THAT EVENT THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL S) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. CONS IDERING THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN ABLE TO SATISFY THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AGAIN SHOULD NO T HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE HOLD ING IT TO BE TIME BARRED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE TH E IMPUGNED ORDER AND CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE 4 ON MERITS BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH MAY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH