M/S. Anmol Associates, Bareilly V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bareilly

ITA 25/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0394 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.25/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.25/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 M/S ANMOL ASSOCIATES, A-4, RAMPUR GARDEN, CIVIL LINES, BAREILLY. PAN:AAKFA 2952 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BAREILLY. (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), BAREILLY DATED 25/10 /2017 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHER E THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ADMITT ED THE SAME AS THE APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THOUGH THE ASSESS EE HAD SUBMITTED CONDONATION APPLICATION EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR N OT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME BUT THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS ACCORDING TO HIM THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VALID REASON. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED IN HIS CONDONATION APPLICATION THAT HE WA S SUFFERING BADLY FROM ACUTE LOW BACK PAIN HOWEVER, WHETHER THE SAME WAS S UPPORTED BY ANY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OR NOT, IS NOT CLEAR. LEARNED A. R. HAS ALSO CONTENDED APPELLANT BY SHRI MONAL AGARWAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY S HRI NIMISH MISHRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 10/09/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 / 09 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.25/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 2 THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE A N OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE TREATING THE REASON GIVEN IN THE CO NDONATION APPLICATION AS NOT VALID. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT ALLOWED MEDICAL GROUNDS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BUT HAS NO T MADE CLEAR WHETHER ANY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN PLAUSIBL E EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CON TENDED THAT HE HAS EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIO US HIGH COURTS THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE AU THORITY SHOULD CONSIDER IT SYMPATHETICALLY AND INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEA L, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD DISPOSE IT OFF ON MERIT. IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS ME RELY A TECHNICAL DEFAULT FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AS THE REASONS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, THE LEARNED C IT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ASKED FOR THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DULY SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL AND DISPOSED IT ON MERIT, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND DIRECT THE L EARNED CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADJUDICATE THE A PPEAL ON MERIT IF THE ASSESSEE FILES BEFORE HIM PROPER MEDICAL CERTIFICAT E DULY SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/09 /2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:19/09/2018 *SINGH I.T.A. NO.25/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 3 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