A.Laxmi Bai, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 244/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53590 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURESH BATINI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.244/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 SMT. A.LAXMI BAI, HYDERABAD ( PAN ACVPA 4493 N ) V/S. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURESH BATINI O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005-06 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS). 2. GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPE ALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM, HOLD ING THAT THE APPEAL AS NOT FILED IN TIME. THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE APPEAL ON THE MERE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED IN TIME. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APP EALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL ON THE MERE GROUN D THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 78 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 78 D AYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A ITA NO.244/H/2011 SMT. A.LAXMI BAI, HYDERABAD 2 CONDONATION APPLICATION AND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT RE ASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN TIME. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS OP POSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED IN HER PETITION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY IN THE FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND NOT ON THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHE WAS OUT OF STATION DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND HER HUSBAND FAILED TO INFORM HE R, AND AS SUCH, THE SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT WITHIN HER KNOWLEDGE. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT PREFERRING APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE CIT(A) IN TIME.. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUES BEFO RE HIM ON MERITS, AND PASS A DE NOVO APPELLATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO BO TH THE PARTIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9.9.2011 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ( G.C. G UPTA) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 ITA NO.244/H/2011 SMT. A.LAXMI BAI, HYDERABAD 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . SMT. A.LAXMI BAI, C/O. SHRI S.RAMA RAO, FLAT NO.102, SHIRYA'S ELEGANCE, NO.3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2) , HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VIJAYAWADA 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VI HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S