Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti , Raibareli V. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax , Sultanpur

ITA 228/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 22823714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K DEY
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.228/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE - SULTANPUR. VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, SALON, DISTT. RAEBARELI. PAN:AABTK1229J (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. DEY, D.R. RESPONDENT BY 10/09/2014 DATE OF HEARING 1 1 /11/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - III, LUCKNOW DATED 24/01/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE LD. 'CIT(A)' WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINI BY HOLDING THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS NOT REASONABLE OR SUFFICIENT. 2. BECAUSE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. 'CIT(A)' HAD OCCURRED FOR THE REASON THAT THE 'APPELLANT' COULD NOT RECEIVE NECESSARY SANCTION FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES, DESPITE DILIGENT EFFORTS MADE BY IT WHICH CONSTITUTED A 'REASONABLE' AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND THE DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL DESERVED TO BE CONDONED. 3. BECAUSE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE LD. 'CIT(A)', WHILE 2 REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM, ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND ACCORDINGLY REFUSAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN THE INSTANT CASE IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED BOTH ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AMIT GUPTA, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE, EXPLAINING THE REASONS RESULTING INTO DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION: ( I ) COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATIJI & ORS. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) ( II ) CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, PURVA & ORS. [2011] 331 ITR 154 (ALL.) ( III ) IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDH IANA VS. UJAGAR SINGH & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO.2395 OF 2008 (SINCE REPORTED IN [2010] 6 SCC 786 ( IV ) MH. SHOAID VS. STATE OF U.P. IN SERVICE SINGLE NO. 6210 OF 2012 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, PURVA & ORS. (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT IN THE CASE OF STATUTORY BODIES, PERMISSION IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN FROM CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES AND ONLY AFTER HAVING THE APPROVAL FROM THE AUTHORITY AND LEGAL ADVICE WHICH TAKES CONSIDERABLE TIME IN CASE OF PUBLIC BODIES, THE APPLICATION CAN BE FILED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS A STATUTORY BODY AND DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF TAKING OPINION FROM TAX COUNSEL AND THEN DISCUSSION WITH DY. DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) AND THEREAFTER PREPARATION OF APPEAL AND THEN ITS SIGNATURE ETC., AS EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AMIT GUPTA, SHOWS THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR A DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, BY 3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HO N'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, PURVA & ORS. (SUPRA), WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR FRESH DECISION ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN ABOVE PARA, OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 /11/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR