Sunbright Fashions Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2784/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7878 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SARAVANAKUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2784/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. SUNBRIGHT FASHIONS PVT. LTD, C/O S. VENKATRAM & CO., CA II FLOOR, 218, TTK ROAD, CHENNAI 600 018. PAN : AADCS6263M V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 6(4), CHENNAI 600 034. (/ APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ! /APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SARAVANAKUMAR, CA '# ! /RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMATHY VENKATRAMAN, JCIT ! /DATE OF HEARING : 21.12.2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 15, CHEN NAI AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2 I.T.A. NO. 2784/MDS/2016 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 16 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE AND TH E LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DEL AY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. SHRI SARAVANAKUMAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 30 DAY S IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ACCOUNTANT WHO RECEIVED THE ORD ER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) RESIGNS THE JOB. THEREFORE THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME BEFORE T HE CIT (APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 30 DA YS. THE CIT (APPEALS) HOWEVER HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY OF 30 DAYS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSE DU E TO RESIGNATION OF THE ACCOUNTANT UNEXPECTEDLY. HENCE AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON M ERIT BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). 3 I.T.A. NO. 2784/MDS/2016 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. SUMATHY VENKATRAMAN, THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE ACCOUNTANT R ECEIVED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), RESIGNED THE JOB. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE CIT (APPEALS) RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 30 DAYS BEFO RE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ACCOUNTANT WHO RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RESIGNS FROM THE J OB. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING THE APPEAL W ITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE CIT (APPEALS) REJECTED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED F OR RESIGNATION OF THE ACCOUNTANT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION, THE OBJECT OF INCOME TAX ACT IS TO ASSESS THE CORRECT T AXABLE INCOME AND LEVY TAX THERE ON. UNLESS THERE IS AN AUTHORIT Y OF LAW, TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED. MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS DELAY O F 30 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE MATERIAL EVIDENC E FOR RESIGNATION OF THE ACCOUNTANT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED 4 I.T.A. NO. 2784/MDS/2016 OPINION, THE REVENUE COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SU CH A SITUATION. NO DOUBT THE LIMITATION PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO GIVE FINALITY TO THE PROCEEDI NGS. NORMALLY THE VESTED INTEREST DUE TO DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL C ANNOT BE DISTURBED. HOWEVER, THE DELAY OF FILING THE APPEAL IN THE INCO ME TAX PROCEEDING MAY NOT GIVE ANY VESTED INTEREST TO THE REVENUE UNL ESS AND UNTIL THE LEVY OF TAX IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. THE DEPARTME NT CANNOT TAKE ANY ADVANTAGE OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, CONDONING THE DELAY OF 30 D AYS AND GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ANY WAY. ON T HE CONTRARY, GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT WOULD PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION OF THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ENACTED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY AUTHORITY NOTHING WOULD BE VESTED ON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT DELAY OF 30 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL NEEDS TO BE CONDONED. THE RESIGNATION OF THE ACCOUNTANT UNEXPECTEDLY, CER TAINLY PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE THER E WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING TH E APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (APPEALS) IS 5 I.T.A. NO. 2784/MDS/2016 SET ASIDE AND THE DELAY OF 30 DAYS IN FILING THE AP PEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONDONED. NOW, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE STANDS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). THE CIT (APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (.. ) (... ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2017. ! ' $ % $ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. '# /RESPONDENT 3. &' ( )/CIT(A)-15, CHENNAI 4. &' /CIT 5. ' $ /DR 6. () /GF.