Quess Corp Limited, Bengaluru V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 247/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0457 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 247/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Quess Corp Ltd., 3/3/2, Quess House, Sarjapur Ambalipura Road, Bellandur Gate, Bengaluru – 560 102. PAN: AABCI7601M Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 10/02/2022 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there was a delay of about 63 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 247/Bang/2022 3. Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted that the representative of the assessee was busy with the tax audit, and therefore, the filing of appeal in the present case inadvertently was missed out. The Ld.AR submitted that in the interest of justice, the issue may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider based on the evidences filed on merits. 4. He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 4.1 On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that sufficient notices were issued to assessee which was ignored and therefore objected the plea raised by the Ld.AR. 5. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 6. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. We have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.(supra), if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. 8. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits based on the documents and evidences filed by the assessee. Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 247/Bang/2022 Accordingly, all issues alleged by assessee is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 05 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 05 th July, 2022. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore