Shri Arif Ahmed Siddiqui S/o M.A. Siddiqui, 309/33C Crescent, Opp. Chandra Store, Palbichla Road Ajmer-305001, Ajmer V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2) Ajmer, Ward-1(2) Ajmer

ITA 261/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0663 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONISHA CHOUDHARY JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 80G; 13

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES B, JAIPUR JH LANHI XLKA ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 261/JP/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI, S/O- M.A. SIDDIQUI, 309/33C, CRESCENT, OPP.-CHANDRA STORE, PALBICHLA ROAD, AJMER (RAJ)- 305001. CUKE VS. I.T.O. WARD-1(2), AJMER. PAN NO.: AWRPS 1696 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL PORWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. MONISHA CHOUDHARY (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/06/2021 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/07/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 16/08/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ISSUE OF :- 1. MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 12,62,938/- AS BUSINESS INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING. 2. ADDITION OF S.B. INTEREST OF RS. 1,455/-. 3. DISALLOWING DONATION OF RS. 16,000/- CLAIMED U/S 80G IS BAD IN LAW. 4. ANY OTHER MATTER WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF CHAIR. ITA 261/JP/2019_ SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI VS ITO 2 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX PARTE WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE 4. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE NOTICED THAT THERE IS DELAY OF MORE THAN 500 DAYS DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY READS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A)S ORDER NO. 503/2016-17 DATED 16/08/2017 WAS RECEIVED ON 15/09/2017 BUT TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND CONTROL I COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE BENCH AND REQUEST TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE REASONS FOR SUCH DELAY ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THAT MY ELDER BROTHER WAS SUFFERING FROM KIDNEY FAILURE AND LATER HE DIED ON 24/03/2018 THUS I WAS IN GREAT MENTAL AGONY FOR LAST 2 YEARS. (2) THAT FURTHER THE A.O. HAS TAKEN WRONG FIGURE OF ADDITION AND IS NOT REPLYING THE REASON FOR. THUS THERE IS A DELIBERATE REASON TO DELAY BUT IT IS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF AND REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ACCEPT THE APPEAL. THE CONTENTS MADE IN THE CONDONATION APPLICATION ARE DULY SUPPORTED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE ABOVE FACTS. ITA 261/JP/2019_ SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI VS ITO 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR COULD NOT REBUT THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FOR SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEALS BELATEDLY, IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT THE COURTS HAVE TO TAKE LIBERAL APPROACH WHILE INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 47 1, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY PROVIDED UNDER THE STATUTE IS TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF THE MATTER ON MERITS, THEREFORE, WHILE CONSIDERING THE MATTERS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE LAW MUST BE APPLIED IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT COME ON THE WAY OF CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT THE EXPLANATION AND REASONS EXPLAINED FOR DELAY MUST BE BONAFIDE AND NOT MERELY A DEVICE TO COVER AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE SUCH AS LACHES ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT OR AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE LIMITATION IN THE UNDERHAND WAY. IF THE PARTY WHO IS SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS NOT ACTED IN MALAFIDE MANNER AND REASONS EXPLAINED ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT THEN THE COURT SHOULD BE LIBERAL IN CONSTRUING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND LEAN IN FAVOUR OF SUCH PARTY. A JUSTICE-ORIENTED APPROACH HAS TO BE TAKEN WHILE ITA 261/JP/2019_ SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI VS ITO 4 DECIDING THE MATTER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A LITIGANT GETS FREE RIGHT TO APPROACH THE COURT AT ITS WILL. 7. IF WE APPLY THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS OTHER COURTS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED CAUSE OF DELAY, THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF MORE THAN 500 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 8. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT BUT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED EX PARTE, THEREFORE, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THERE ARE INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE MATTER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS BY THE LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE SAME IN LIMINI. IN OUR VIEW, IT WAS THE BOUNDED DUTY OF THE PARTIES I.E. ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE, THIS WAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THEREFORE IT WAS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACTED WITH DUE DILIGENCE. NEVERTHELESS, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THE LIS BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND ITA 261/JP/2019_ SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI VS ITO 5 THE MATTER BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASON, NOT TO TAKE FURTHER ADJOURNMENTS. IF THE ASSESSEE TAKES ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT AND PLAUSIBLE REASON, THEN THE LD. CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 9. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR DECISION TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) SHALL IN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING ANY REFLECTION OR EXPRESSION ON THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE, WHICH SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY LD. CIT(A) INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XLKA (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13/07/2021 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-1(2), AJMER. ITA 261/JP/2019_ SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI VS ITO 6 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 261/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR