Bala Abirami Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2665/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1818 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N VIJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 43

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.2664, 2665 & 2666/CHNY/2017 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S BALA ABIRAMI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 16/16A, ABIRAMI CORPORATE CENTRE, 3 RD CROSS STREET, NEHRU NAGAR, KOTTIVAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 041. PAN : AAACB 3876 C V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. VIJAY KUMAR, CA ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 22.10.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.12.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -5, CHENNAI, DATED 19.07.2017. THEREFORE, WE HEARD ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDE R. 2. SHRI N. VIJAY KUMAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 43 DAYS IN FILI NG THESE APPEALS 2 I.T.A. NOS.2664 TO 2666/CHNY/17 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THESE APP EALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 43 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS AND ADMIT TH E APPEALS. 3. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO APPEALS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS CONFIRM ED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND ALSO PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). BOTH THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WERE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 371 DAYS IN FILING THE AP PEAL IN I.T.A. NO.2665/CHNY/2017 AND 213 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.2664/CHNY/2017. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE, THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE MISPLACED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT IN HIS OFFICE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY. THEREFORE, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEALS BEFORE 3 I.T.A. NOS.2664 TO 2666/CHNY/17 THE CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE CONDONED AND BOTH THE APPEA LS MAY BE RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR RECONS IDERATION ON MERIT. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. D.R., SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS MORE THAN 200 DAYS. T HE ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY OF EACH AND EVERY DAY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., MERE MISPLACE MENT OF PAPERS IN THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OFFICE CANNOT BE A RE ASON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION O F THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 371 DAYS IN FILIN G THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.2665/CHNY/2017 AND 213 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.2664/CHNY/2017 IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT( APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE P APERS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND IT WAS MISPLACED IN THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OFFICE. THIS FACT IS NO T DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. IS TH AT THE MISPLACEMENT OF PAPERS IN THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT S OFFICE CANNOT 4 I.T.A. NOS.2664 TO 2666/CHNY/17 BE A GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED THE CH ARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEAL S) AND HANDED OVER THE RELEVANT PAPERS. MISPLACEMENT OF PAPERS I N THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OFFICE IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DELAY WAS NOT DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE APPEALS HAVE TO BE DISPOSED ON MERIT. 6. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONDONING THE DELAY AND HEARING THE APPEALS ON MERIT MAY NOT PREJ UDICE THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY. THE TECHNICALITIES CANNOT STAN D IN THE WAY OF CONSIDERING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT, E SPECIALLY IN THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY TAX LIA BILITY UNLESS IT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPEALS HAVE TO BE HEARD ON MERIT. MOREOVER, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. ACCORDI NGLY, THE DELAY OF 371 DAYS IN FILING THE QUANTUM APPEAL AND 213 DAYS IN FILING THE PENALTY APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY CO NDONED. BOTH THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE SET ASIDE. NOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT( APPEALS). THE 5 I.T.A. NOS.2664 TO 2666/CHNY/17 CIT(APPEALS) SHALL DISPOSE THE APPEALS ON MERIT AFT ER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. NOW, COMING TO I.T.A. NO.2666/CHNY/2017 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12, SHRI N. VIJAY KUMAR, THE LD. REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APP EAR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCE, THERE FORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNIT Y MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 8. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. D.R. AL SO. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, BOTH THE QUANTUM APPEA L AS WELL AS THE PENALTY APPEAL ARE RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECONS IDERED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL DISPOSE THE A PPEALS ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREAFTER 6 I.T.A. NOS.2664 TO 2666/CHNY/17 DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFT ER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 4 TH DECEMBER, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-5, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 1, CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.