, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI . . , !' , # , $ BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO.2031/MUM/2014 ( # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SHRI DOULAT C. GULANI C/O. SURESH N. OTWANI (ADVOCATE) 305, ADAMJI BUILDING, 3 RD FLOOR, 413, KATHA BAZAR, MUMBAI - 400009 / VS. ITO 19(3)(4) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400012 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABPG5601Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SURESH N. OTWANI DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUBACHAN RAM (CIT-DR) !'# $% &' / DATE OF HEARING: 15.09.2015 ()*+ $% &' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:11.12.2015 ,- / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LEARNED CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FILE CAREFULLY. THE SOLE POINT WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PASSED ON 10.12.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO ADDUCE SOME DOCUMENTS IN ITS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THUS APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) DISMISSED THE ITA NO.2031/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 18.02.2014 ONLY ON THE REASON THAT THE DELAY HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED. IT IS NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 10.12.2008 AND WAS S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.12.2008. THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 17.01.2009. ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) PERUSED WHICH SPEAKS THAT D ATE OF FILING THE APPEAL IS 18.03.2009. NO DOUBT IF THERE IS DELAY IN FILING O F THE APPEAL THEN THERE IS A DELAY OF TWO MONTH ONLY WHEREAS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THE FACTS ABOUT THE DELAY OF 8 MONTHS WHICH IS WRO NG FACT. TO CONSIDER THE DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH HE HAS MENTIONED THAT HIS BUSINESS WAS A FAMILY BUSINESS AND THERE WAS DISPUT E AMONG HIS THREE SONS AND HE WAS MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY DISTURBED. HE ALSO MENTIONED HIS AGE ABOUT 72 YEARS IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. SINCE THE DELAY IS ONLY FO R THE PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS AND REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT HAS NOT BEEN CON TROVERTED WITHOUT ANY COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS ANY OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FINALISED ON 10.12.2 008 AND ONLY AFTER THE 5DAYS HE MOVED AN APPLICATION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. HENCE WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES ON MERITS . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH DECEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (AMARJIT SINGH) , / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./$ , /JUDICIAL MEMBER 0 1# MUMBAI; 2,!$ DATED : 11 TH DECEMBER, 2015 MP MP MP MP ITA NO.2031/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3 ' ( )# !* +*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ 3& ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. $ 3& / CIT 5. 4'56 /&/!78 , $ ' 78$+ , 0 1# / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 69: ;# / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, 4& /& //TRUE COPY// , / ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , 0 1# / ITAT, MUMBAI