Rajan Singh , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2198/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6584 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K C DEVDAS S MT N SWAPNA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Right to appeal; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 & 2 2197 & 2198/H/2018 2009 - 10 & 2011 - 12 RAJAN SINGH, HYDERABAD. PAN ASTPS 2275G INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), HYDERABAD. 3 617/H/2020 2009 - 10 MADHU MATHI, HYDERABAD. PAN DBYPM 9808L - DO - 4 742/H/2020 2009 - 10 USHA BAI, HYDERABAD. PAN AAOPU837IN - DO - ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY: S MT. N. SWAPNA DATE OF HEARING: 0 7 /0 9 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 /0 9 /2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M. : ALL THESE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A) - 3 HYDERABAD S SEPARATE ORDER S DATED 15/02/2021 FOR AY 20 1 7 - 1 8 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I TA NO. 2197 / /HYD /20 18 AND OTHERS RAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS. : - 2 - : 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSEESSEES BEFORE THE ITAT, NAMELY, ITA NOS. 2197 & 2198 /HYD/2018 1 DAY DEL AY IN EACH APPEAL, ITA NO. 617/HYD/2020 248 DAYS DELAY AND ITA NO. 742/HYD/2020 348 DAYS DE LAY. ON PERUSAL OF AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES, WE FIND THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE CAUSES, WHICH PREVENTED THEM TO FILE THE APPEALS WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. CASE LAW COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI & ORS, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) AND UNIVERS ITY OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9488 & 9489/2019 DATED 17 DECEMBER, 2019, HOLD THAT SUCH A DELAY; SUPPORTED BY COGENT REASONS, DESERVES TO BE CONDONED SO AS TO MAKE WAY FOR THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT ASSE SSEES IMPUGNED DELAYS ARE NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND ITS CONTROL. THE SAME STANDS CONDONED. CASES ARE NOW TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM , EXCEPT IN ITA NO. 742/HYD/2020. 4. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE MATTERS EX - PARTE AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS I TA NO. 2197 / /HYD /20 18 AND OTHERS RAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS. : - 3 - : WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAYS. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MAT TERS MAY BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEALS ON MERITS. THE LEARNED DR AGREED WITH THE AFORESAID STATEMENT OF THE LEARNED AR. 5. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD . BY ALL POSSIBILITIES, NO ONE CAN DENY THAT THERE ARE DELAY S IN FILING THE APPEAL. EVERY PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE CASE OF COMPANY, WHICH DEPENDS IN THE EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT HAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT. ONE CANNOT DENY THE ABOVE POSSIBILITY. MERELY BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED, WE CANNOT ASSURE THAT THEY CANNOT MAKE ANY MISTAKE. THERE IS SAYING THAT THERE IS DARK UNDER THE LIGHT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER S BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY S IN FILING THE SE APPEAL S BEFORE HIM AND DECIDE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE S AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE APPEAL S ON MERITS. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: 5. 1. T HE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJU AN D I TA NO. 2197 / /HYD /20 18 AND OTHERS RAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS. : - 4 - : OTHERS, [1987]167 ITR 471, WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDONE DEL AY BY ENACTING S. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON 'MERITS'. THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COUR TS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAT BEING THE LIFE - PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN MAKING A JUSTIFIABLY LIBERAL APPROACH IN MATTERS INSTI TUTED IN THIS COURT. BUT THE MESSAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE PERCOLATED DOWN TO ALL THE OTHER COURTS IN THE HIERARCHY. 4. AND SUCH A LIBERAL APPROACH IS ADOPTED ON PRINCIPLE AS IT IS REALIZED THAT: 1. ORDINARILY, A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LOD GING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS, WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED, THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE D ECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. I TA NO. 2197 / /HYD /20 18 AND OTHERS RAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS. : - 5 - : 3. 'EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOUR'S DELAY, EVERY SECOND'S DELAY ? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE AND PRAGM ATIC MANNER. 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON - DE LIBERATE DELAY. 5. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALA FIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. IN FACT, HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. 6. IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT THE JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 5.2 . T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.F. BIOPLANT (P) LTD., (BOM) 233 TAXMAN 74, WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY KEEPING IN MIND THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF I TA NO. 2197 / /HYD /20 18 AND OTHERS RAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS. : - 6 - : THE APE X COURT IN STATE OF M.P. V. PRADEEP KUMAR [2000] 7 SCC 372: 'IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRISTINE MAXIM 'VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIOBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT (LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS). BUT, EVEN A VIGILANT LITIGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM 'TO ERR IS HUMAN' IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR THAN AN ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT NORMALLY CAUSE THE DOORS OF JUDICATURE PERMANENTLY CLOSED B EFORE HIM . . .' THIS WE COUNTER - BALANCED BY THE LIKELY PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE ON ACCOUNT OF CONDONING THE DELAY. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF REVENUE'S MISTAKE THE DELAY OF 1845 DAYS IN TAKING OUT THE PRESENT MOTION BE CONDONED AND WE ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2009 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THIS COURT. HOWEVER, A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE WOULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED IF APPROPRIATE CARE HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THEM. THUS, THE LACK OF CARE WHICH LED TO A MISTAKE OF 1845 DAYS C ANNOT BE WITHOUT COSTS. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED SUBJECT TO THE APPELLANT - REVENUE PAYING A COST OF RS.20,000/ - TO THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE 30.3.2015. NEEDLESS TO STATE THE APPELLANT WILL ALSO REMOVE THE OFFICE OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE 30 .3.2015. I TA NO. 2197 / /HYD /20 18 AND OTHERS RAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS. : - 7 - : 6. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEES TO APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A) WITH ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES; AT THEIR OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILIT IES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. 7. IN ITA NO. 742/HYD/2020, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF NON APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. WE DIRECT THE ASSES SEES TO APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A) WITH ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES; AT HER OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILIT IES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES IN ABOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) (L . P . SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDE RABAD, DATED : 8 TH SEPTEMBER , 20 2 1 . K V I TA NO. 2197 / /HYD /20 18 AND OTHERS RAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS. : - 8 - : C OPY TO : 1 RAJAN SINGH, C/O M/S SEKHAR & CO., 133/4, RP ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 500 003. 2 MADHU MATHI, 13 - 6 - 818/A/23, LANGER HOUSE, HYDERABAD 500 008. 3 USHA BAI, H.NO. 2 - 35/19/1, DURGA NAGAR, PUPPAL GUDA, ALKAPUR, HYDERABAD 500 089 4 IT O, WARD - 7 ( 2 ), HYDERABAD 5 C I T(A) 3 , HYDERABAD. 6 PR. CIT 3, HYDERABAD. 7 ITAT, DR, HYDERABAD. 8 GUARD FILE. S.NO. DETAILS DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER