Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Uttrakhand V. ITO, Rishikesh

ITA 2/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65761 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K K JUNEJA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2007-08 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, (PROP.) M/S BALLAMAL PREM CHAND JAIN, NEAR SBI, DHALWALA, (TEHRI GHARWAL) VIA RISHIKESH UTTARAKHAND (PAN: ABMPJ4993L) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RISHIKESH (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. K. JUNEJA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. DEEPAK SEHGAL, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN DATED 01.12.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. AT THE THRESHOLD, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY AN D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. IN THIS CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSING O FFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 4,44,249/- TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITA NO. 2/DEL/2012 2 (A) WAS DELAYED BY 180 DAYS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED AN ADVOCATE OF RISHIKESH TO FILE THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY IN COME TAX RETURNS AND ATTEND ALL THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTED UPON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVISE G IVEN BY THE ADVOCATE. FURTHER, IN THIS MATTER THE ISSUE CAM E REGARDING DONATION OF ` 3.40 LACS. ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE H AS SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO BUY A PEACE O F MIND ON THE GROUND THAT NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WILL BE TAKEN AG AINST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ORDER A GAINST THE ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN THE INCOME TAX OFFICER PASSED TH E PENALTY ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF ` 2,00,000/-. THE LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID D ISCUSSION, THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, H E PLEADED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE ON MERITS. HE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONDONED THE DELAY OF 180 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED ABOVE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (A). WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A . NO. 623/DEL/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.9.2012 IN SIMILAR SITUATION IN ASSESS EES GROUP CASE HAS CONDONED THE SIMILAR DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED ITA NO. 2/DEL/2012 3 OPINION, THAT DELAY IN THIS CASE IN FILING THE APPE AL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) NEEDED TO BE CONDONED . ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE CASE, AFT ER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/11/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [SHAMIM [SHAMIM [SHAMIM [SHAMIM YAHYA] YAHYA] YAHYA] YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 09/11/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES