SENNEERKUPPAM KANNAPPAN SEKAR, CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW - 8 (5), CHENNAI

ITA 2249/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4751 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI . . . , , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2249/CHNY/2019 & & /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 MR. SENNEERKUPPAM KANNAPPAN- SEKAR, NEW NO.2/77, OLD NO.2/110, AVADI MAIN ROAD, SENNEERKUPPAM, CHENNAI-600 056. [PAN: ABCPS 6056 M] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-8(5), CHENNAI. ( ) /APPELLANT) ( *+) /RESPONDENT) ) , / APPELLANT BY : MR. Y.SRIDHAR, CA *+) , /RESPONDENT BY : MR. AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT , /DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2020 , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.02.2020 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, CHENNAI, DA TED 22.05.2019, AND PERTAINS TO THE AY 2016-17. 2. SHRI Y.SRIDHAR, CA, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF ONE DAY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED APPLICATION FOR ITA NO.2249/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: CONDONATION OF DELAY. INVITING THE ATTENTION OF TH IS TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 24.12.2018 AND THE A PPEAL WAS ADMITTEDLY FILED ON 24.01.2019. IF WE EXCLUDE THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE DATE OF FILIN G OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THERE IS NO DELAY AT ALL. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE DAY FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO INCLUDED THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, TH E LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 3. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT/DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. IT IS NOT A DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS PASSED ON 24.12.2018. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2018 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE NEXT DAY I.E. 25. 12.2018 AND IF WE EXCLUDE THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL I.E. 24.01 .2019, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WELL WITHIN T HE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING T HAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED WELL WITH IN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TO DISPOS E THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD .CIT(A) SHALL DISPOSE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER GIVING A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2249/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2020, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. TLN , *34 54 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT 4. 6 /CIT 2. *+) /RESPONDENT 5. 4 * /DR 3. 6 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. & /GF