M/S B.K. KHARE AND COMPANY, MUMBAI V. ACIT - 11(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2715/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3098 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H P MAHAJANI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RAMLAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 2715 /MUM/ 20 13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 ) M/S. B.K. KHARE & COMPANY 708, SHARDA CHAMBERS NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI - 400 020. VS. ACIT 1 1(2) 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAAFB0265E ASSESSEE BY SHRI H.P. MAHAJANI DEPARTMENT BY SHRI SANJEEV JAIN DATE OF HEARING 7.6 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 7.6 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B .R. BASKARAN, A M : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.7.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 3, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2008 - 0 9 . 2. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 562 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATI ON BEFORE THE BENCH REQUESTING THE BENCH TO CONDON E THE DELAY. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS LOOKING THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A) . S INCE HE WAS A MAIN PARTNER AND S INCE HE WAS BUSY WITH HIS ROUTINE AUDIT AND INCOME TAX WORKS RELATING TO THE CLIENTS, HE LOS T SIGHT OF THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PARTNER WAS ALSO FACING HE A L TH ISSUES DURING THAT PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY IT HAS BE EN PRAYED THAT DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE COURT S HAVE HELD THAT A LIBERAL APPROACH SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE MATTER RELATING TO CONDONATION . I N THIS REGARD , HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE M/S. B.K. KHARE & COMPANY 2 CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471. ON THE CONTRARY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. HAVING HEARD T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. REMAINING GROUNDS RELATE TO ADDITION OF ` 6,99,350/ - BEING DIFFERENCE IN PROFESSIONAL FEES, NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SINCE RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE AND APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION RELATING TO THE SAME WAS OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT I MPOSE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME EXPLANATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES EXAMINATIO N AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. M/S. B.K. KHARE & COMPANY 3 8. HAVING HEARD THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DULY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) PASSED ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THE SAME AFRESH. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 .6 .2016 . SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 7 / 6/ 20 1 6 COPY O F THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS