M/S. Tarun Chetna, Pratapgarh V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 226/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2810 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: B P YADAV COST ACCOUNTANT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 226/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 M/S TARUN CHETNA 01, PRITHVIGANJ BAZAR PATTI PRATAPGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) LUCKNOW T AN /PAN : AAATT7332E (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B.P. YADAV, COST ACCOUNTANT RESPONDENT BY: SMT. POOJA RAJ, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 14 08 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 08 201 8 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - IV, LUCKNOW DATED 16/2/2018 AS PER FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - IV, LUCKNOW (HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT - A.) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. 2 . ON THE FACTS STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL IN NOT GRANTING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.226/LKW/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 3 . THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUND AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 11(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A RECOGNISED SOCIETY U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND FORM 10 CONTAINING THE COPY OF RESOLUTION WAS VERY MUCH PLACED BEFOR E HIM BEFORE THE PASSING THE ORDER ON 13.01.2016. 4 . ON THE FACTS STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS; THE LD. A.O. IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,22,614/ - AND HENCE IT MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 5 . THE LD. A.O. ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN NOT PROVIDING THE APPELLANT THE PROPER ADEQUATE OR SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT SAY OR MAKE NECESSARY COMPLIANCE OF THE REASONS RELIED UPON BY HIM IN TAXING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,22,614 / - . 6 . THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADV ANCE SUCH OTHER GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE HEARING, WHICH IT MAY CONSIDER FIT AND APPROPRIATE, FOR WHICH IT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER OR OTHERWISE MODIFY THE GROUNDS APPEARING HEREINBEFORE WITH THE KIND PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. 2 . LD. A.R. OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF APPRISED THE BENCH THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND HAS DISMISSED THE SAME. LD. A.R. OF THE A SSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ESPECIALLY GROUND NO.2 WHICH READS AS ON THE FACTS STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL IN NOT GRANTING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND DIS MISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. THIS BEING THE CRUX OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS FURTHER STATED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH MULTIPLE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AND HAS DISMISSED IT ITA NO.226/LKW/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR A FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS. 3 . LD. D.R. CONCEDED TO THE REQUEST MADE BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS, HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND HAS DISMISSED THE SAME. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESSE E HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ACCEPT THE PRAYER MADE BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRE SH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 / 0 8 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHA UDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH AUGUST , 201 8 JJ: 1408 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR