M/s Omkareshwara Charitable Trust , Mandya V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 , Mysore

ITA 2388/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1417 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M NARASIMHA RAJU J
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2388/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S OMKARESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST, SURVEY NO.21, PUTTAIAHNA KOPPAL, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TQ., MANDYA. PAN AAATO 1468 J VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MYSORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M NARASIMHA RAJU, J.C.I.T (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 05.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12.2019 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING TH E ORDER DATED 13-07-2018 PASSED BY LD CIT(A), MYSURU AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE LD COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) CHALLENG ING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THERE WAS DELAY OF 80 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EXPLANATIONS FOR THE DELAY BY STATING THA T THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO ILL HEALTH OF REPRESENTATIVE. HOWE VER, THE LD CIT(A) ITA NO.2388 /BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 4 HAS REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY SINCE THE ABOVE SA ID EXPLANATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGL Y THE LD CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 3. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFF ERED EXPLANATIONS FOR THE DELAY AND THE SAME WAS ALSO EX PLAINED IN PERSON BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE FURNISHED THE DOCUMENTS IN SUPP ORT OF THE ILLNESS OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, IF AN OPPORTUN ITY WAS GIVEN BY LD CIT(A). IN ANY CASE, THE DELAY HAS NOT OCCURRED AT THE ASSESSEES END. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS ONLY 80 DAYS AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE LD CIT(A) SHOU LD HAVE CONDONED THE SAME. HE PRAYED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY C ONDONE THE DELAY OCCURRED IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R OPPOSED THE PRA YER OF LD A.R. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY OF 80 DAYS THAT HAS OCCURRED IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE L D CIT(A). IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE CONDONATIO N PETITIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LIBERALLY, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GOING TO GAIN ANYTHING BY DELAYING THINGS. IN THIS REGARD, WE DE RIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MS. KATIJI (167 ITR 471)(SC). AS PER THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED, THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO THE ILL HEALTH OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, MEANING THEREBY , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE FAULTED WITH FOR THE DELAY THAT OCCUR RED AT THE END OF ITA NO.2388 /BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 4 THE REPRESENTATIVE. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELA Y WOULD WARRANT THAT THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). 6. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE OCCA SION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS, SINCE HE HAD DISMISSED THE APP EAL IN LIMINE. HENCE THE ISSUES URGED ON MERITS DESERVE TO BE SET ASIDE TO HIS FILE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUES URGED ON MERITS TO HIS FOR ADJUDICATING THEM. AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THE LD CIT(A) MAY TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 2019. SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 13 TH DECEMBER, 2019. / VMS / COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. ITA NO.2388 /BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. .. 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED