Smt. Komal Bhasin, Kanpur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 230/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1164 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.230/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.230/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 SMT. KOMAL BHASIN, R/O 10/434-A, KHALASI LINES, KANPUR. PAN:AGLPB 7042 E VS. A.C.I.T.-!, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 23/01/2017. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHE RE THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ADMITT ED THE SAME AS THE APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. LEARNED A. R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TIME REQUIRED FOR OBTAINING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER WAS TO BE EXCLUDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 29 OF THE LIMITATION ACT READ WITH SECTION 12 THEREOF AS HELD BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF V.P. MISHRA AND OTHERS [1977] 110 ITR 25 (ALL). LE ARNED A. R. HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY APPELLANT BY SHRI PRADEEP SETH, F.C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI J. S. MINHAS, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 17/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 / 01 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.230/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 2 TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE TREATING THE APPEAL AS B ARRED BY LIMITATION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANAT ION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED TH AT SHE HAS EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT H AS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD CONSIDER IT SYMPATHETICALLY AND INSTEAD OF DISMISSING APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF LIMIT ATION, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD DISPOSE IT OFF ON MERIT. IT SEEMS THAT THER E IS MERELY A TECHNICAL DEFAULT FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL THEREFORE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE APPEAL AND DISPOSED IT ON MERIT, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT W ITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND D IRECT THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADJUD ICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:18/01/2018 *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