Smt. Narasingan Kumari, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2206/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8223 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , !' . #$#% , & '' ( [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A. NO.2206/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. SMT. NARASINGAN KUMARI, OLD NO.38,NEW THANDAVARAYA STREET, OLD WASHERMANPET, CHENNAI 600 021 [PAN AADPK 0305R] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -5, CHENNAI ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT. / DATE OF HEARING : 13-10-2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-10-2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITS GRIEVAN CE IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT CONDON E THE DELAY IN ITA NO.2206/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: FILING OF APPEAL AND HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHO UT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN DISCLOSING AN INCOME OF A39,63,360/-. ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A CLINICAL LABORATORY NAMED ABIRAMI. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED INTER ALIA MAKING AN ADDITION OF A26,69,319/- FOR INTEREST INCOME NOT S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ADDITION OF A30,56,921/- FOR CASH C REDIT APPEARING IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A ). THERE WAS A DELAY OF 204 DAYS IN FILING THE SAID A PPEAL. IN THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS S TATED THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO MISPLACEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONDONATION PETITION. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE DID NOT SPECI FY WHAT WAS MISPLACED. FURTHER AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS PLEA THAT THE ORDER WAS MISPLACED. HE, THEREFORE REFUSED TO COND ONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ITA NO.2206/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION FOR INTEREST WAS BASED ON A TDS CERTIFICATE. ACCORDING TO HIM THE INTEREST AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS W AS DEDUCTED WAS NEVER RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS FOR THE ADDITION FOR CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT SUBMIS SION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE ADDITION OF A30,56,921/- WAS DUE TO AN OMISSION OF THE ACCOUNTANT. ACCORDING T O HIM, THE ACCOUNTANT HAD BY MISTAKE CLUBBED THE CLOSING BALA NCE IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT WITH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHILE CARRYING FOR WARD BALANCE OF THE EARLIER YEAR TO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ACCORD ING TO HIM, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED IN MERITS AND NOT DISMISSED ON TECH NICALITY. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT ASSESSEE UNABLE TO SHOW PROPER REASON FOR DELAY. R ELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VEDABAI ALIAS VIJAYANTHABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. SHANTHARAM BABURAO PATIL AND OTHE RS 253 ITR 798 . LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT INOR DINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 6. WE HEARD CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 204 DAYS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED THAT SHE HAD MIS PLACED THE ORDER ITA NO.2206/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: FROM THE DEPARTMENT AND THIS WAS THE CAUSE FOR TH E DELAY. ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A CLINICAL LABORATORY AND NOT IN A LARG E SCALE BUSINESS WHEREIN SHE COULD HAVE EMPLOYED SKILLED PERSONS FOR HER ACCOUNTING WOK. HER TURNOVER WAS ONLY A15,53,031/- . LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR A REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT SPECIFY WHAT WAS MISPLACED, WHETHE R ASSESSMENT ORDER OR DEMAND NOTICE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO MENTIONS THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT EVIDEN CE FOR MISPLACING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EVIDENCE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BROUGHT IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTE NTION THAT ORDER WAS MISPLACED. ASSESSEE BEING A SMALL TIME BUSINE SS WOMAN, IN OUR OPINION LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SH OULD NOT HAVE DISBELIEVED THE REASONS GIVEN BY HER FOR THE DELAY . FURTHER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION IN CASH CREDIT WAS DUE TO ER ROR MADE BY ITS ACCOUNTANT THROUGH CLUBBING OF BANK LOAN ACCOUNT WI TH CAPITAL ACCOUNT. IN SO FAR AS, ADDITION FOR INTEREST IS CON CERNED, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT INTEREST AMOUNT DID NOT PERTAIN TO RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WHEN MERITS OF THE CASE AND TECHNICALITIES ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE FORMER SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE IMPORTANCE AND THE LATTER SHOULD TAKE A BACK SEAT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS WAS A FIT CASE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. WE DIRECT LD. COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.2206/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONDONE THE DELAY, ADMIT TH E APPEAL AND DISPOSE OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERITS OF THE CASE. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOB ER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . #$#% ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED:28TH OCTOBER, 2016 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF