Late Dharmendra Jagdishbhai Dubal, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2736/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6190 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N DIVATIA ROOPCHAND RESP
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2736/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO.2736/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 LATE DHARMENDRA JAGDISHBHAI DUBAL, ..................APPELLANT BY L/R SMT. KIRTIBEN D. DUBAL, C-5, KOMAL ENCLAVE, P.T. COLLEGE ROAD, NR. SHANTIVAN CROSS ROADS, PALDI , AHMEDABAD 380 007. [PAN : AIDPD 8754 H]. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), AHMEDABAD. ............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY S.N. DIVATIA FOR THE APPELLANT ROOPCHAND FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 01.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 02.02.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14 TH OCTOBER 2015, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), AHMEDA BAD, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 14.10.2015 FOR A.Y . 2011-12 BY CIT(A)-5, ABAD DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON GROUND OF LIMITATION BY RE FUSING TO CONDONE DELAY OF FIVE DAYS IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CTT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON GROUND OF LIMITATION BY REFUSING TO CONDONE DELA Y OF FIVE DAYS. 2.1 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FROM NON- ATTENDANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE ALLEGED NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO SERIOUS AND CRITICAL CONDI TION OF THE APPELLANT DURING LAST 3-4 MONTHS PRIOR TO HIS DEATH, THERE COULD NOT BE A NY COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES. HE WAS ADMITTED TO CIVIL HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT AND ULTIMATELY DIED ON 15.10.2015. ITA NO.2736/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 2 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED IN VIEW O F THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS NARRATED IN SOF HEREIN ABOVE. 3.1 IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS E RRED IN NOT DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS OF THE CASE. IT IS, THEREFORE; PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL DISMISSED BY THE CTT(A) MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED WITH DIRECTIONS TO HEAR & DISPOSE OFF ON M ERITS. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 304 DAYS, BUT THE A SSESSEE HAS MOVED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT HER HUSBAND SHRI DHARMENDRA J. DUBAL DIED AFTER BRIEF ILLNESS LEAVING BEHIND HER AND TWO CHILDREN AND SIN CE THERE WAS NO ELDER MALE PERSON IN THE FAMILY WHO MAY LOOK AFTER THE BUSINESS AND OTHER MA TTERS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT THE BUSINESS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS, THERE COULD N OT BE ANY FOLLOW UP TO THE PENDING MATTERS. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRAVERSING THROUGH A DIFFICULT SITUATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE FACTS. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT IT WAS DUE TO THIS DIFFICULT PATCH OF TIME AND THE PROBLEMS BEING FACED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY IN FILIN G OF THE APPEAL IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED. HAVING CONSIDERED THIS EXPLANATION AND HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I AM INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, T HE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIA L FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS TIME BARRED BY 5 DAYS AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE REASONS FOR SUCH DELAY EITHER WITH THE APPEAL MEMO OR IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN ALL FAIRNESS TO LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE DID NOT SER IOUSLY OPPOSE THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE DELAY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDONED AND THE MATTER OU GHT TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE A BOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE 5 DAYS DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) AND THE MATTER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. I, ACCORDINGLY, REMIT T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS DE NOVO. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 2 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD