Mr. Amita Gupta, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1921/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8172 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMBIT TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH NARAIN

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1921 /DEL/2009 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH A BEFORE SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1921/DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96) MRS. AMITA GUPTA, VS. ITO, WARD 24(3), E-67 (LGF) GREATER KAILASH-III, NEW DELHI. MASJID MOTH, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AEUPG8795C APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRAKASH NARAIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SAMBIT TRIPATHI, SR. DR ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) XVII, NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO.93/CIT(A)-XVII/DEL/2006-07 DATED 20 TH FEB 2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. SHRI PRAKASH NARA IN, ADV. REPRESENTED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SAMBIT TRIPATHI, SR. DR REPRESENTED FOR THE REVENUE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF ONE DAY DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE ASSESS MENT I.T.A. NO.1921 /DEL/2009 2/3 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE ON 08.03.2006 AND THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL WAS 07.02.2006 BUT THE A PPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 10.04.2006. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO GO TO SEE HIS AI LING MOTHER AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL I N TIME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT 8 TH AND 9 TH APRIL WERE HOLIDAYS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED ON 10.04.2006 ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED NECES SARY AFFIDAVIT SWEARING TO THE SAID FACTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DELAY FOR ONE DAY WAS ONLY BECA USE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RETURN TO DELHI IN TIME ON 7 TH APRIL 2006. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI AND OTHE RS REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471, THE DELAY MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE CONDONED AND THE CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO DISPOSE O FF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IN REPLY, THE LD. D.R. VEHEM ENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISION AS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE . A PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TEC HNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE C AUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED, FOR T HE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTI CE I.T.A. NO.1921 /DEL/2009 3/3 BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON DELIBERATE DELAY. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REAS ONS FOR THE DELAY AND THE DELAY IS NOT OF SUCH A LARGE MAGNITUDE THAT THE BONA FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE ACCEPTED. A JUSTIFIABLE AND LIBERAL APPROACH IS TO BE ADOPTED IN SUCH CASES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICAT ION ON MERITS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 01 ST FEB., 2010. SD./- SD./- (K.G.BANSAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:01 ST FEB., 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI