Smt. Vishalakshi Devi, Bengaluru V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2797/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5466 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMAMEENAKSHI J
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 2795 TO 2797 / BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2001 - 02, 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI, SHREEYUM PALACE GROUNDS, RAMANAMAHARSHI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 080. PAN: ABVPV6587A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (4), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 . 0 3 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 . 0 3 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-14, LTU, BANGALORE DA TED 22.02.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2003-04 AND 2004-05. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 2795/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS, EQUITY AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVIN G SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND IN VIOLATION OF TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER IS LIABL E TO BE SET ASIDE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 9 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 5. THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID -AB-INITIO FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION, ESPECIALLY THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO ASSUME JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DI D NOT EXIST AND HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSES SMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRED IN MAKIN G AN ADDITION OF RS.34,000/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ON THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,88,000/- AS INTEREST INCOME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.21,10,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER W ITH THE LEARNED CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THE L EVY DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIF Y OR AMEND AND DELETE ANYOF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 12. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BY ALLOWED AND RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED AS PRAYED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 9 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 2796/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS, EQUITY AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVIN G SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND IN VIOLATION OF TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER IS LIABL E TO BE SET ASIDE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 5. THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID -AB-INITIO FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION, ESPECIALLY THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO ASSUME JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DI D NOT EXIST AND HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSES SMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRED IN MAKIN G AN ADDITION OF RS. 28,290/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,88,000/- AS INTEREST INCOME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 27,42,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER W ITH THE LEARNED CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THE L EVY DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 9 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIF Y OR AMEND AND DELETE ANYOF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 12. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BY ALLOWED AND RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED AS PRAYED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05 IN ITA NO. 2797/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS, EQUITY AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVIN G SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND IN VIOLATION OF TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER IS LIABL E TO BE SET ASIDE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE AC T ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,80,000/- AS RENTAL INCOME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,88,000/- AS INTEREST INCOME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,50,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WI TH THE LEARNED CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHICH UNDER THE FACTS ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 9 AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THE L EVY DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIF Y OR AMEND AND DELETE ANYOF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BY ALLOWED AND RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED AS PRAYED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 5. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THESE APPEALS ARE FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 226 DAYS AND THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. REGARDING REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , HE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE CHANGED THE AUDITOR AND APPROACHED THE NEW AUDITOR FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BU T DID NOT GET PROPER ADVICE REGARDING FILING FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . THEN THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE PRESENT COUNSEL ALONG WITH THE NEW A UDITOR AND THEN ONLY, THE ASSESSEE GOT PROPER ADVICE FROM THE PRESENT COUNSEL REGARDING FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI& OTHERS AS REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471, THE DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS ONE MORE REASON WHICH CONTRIBUTED IN BELATED FILING OF APPEAL AND THIS WAS THIS THAT AS PER THE ORDER RECEIVED FROM THE CIT(A), WHICH IS ENCLOSED WITH THE APPEAL MEMO, THE APPEAL NOS. GIVEN ARE ITA NOS. 20,24,25,23,22,21/ITO,W-6(4)/CIT(A)-14/2014-15 BUT EARLIER, IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY CIT(A)-14 (COPY OF NOTICE DATED 16.05.201 6 SUBMITTED), THE APPEAL NOS. GIVEN WERE ITA NO. 44,46&47/ITO W 6(4)/CIT(A)- 14/2006-07 AND BECAUSE OF THIS FACT THAT IN THE NOTICE, THE APPEAL NOS. GI VEN WERE DIFFERENT AND THE APPEAL NOS. IN THE ORDER WERE DIFFERENT, THE ASSESS EE WAS CONFUSED AND FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL WAS DELAYED. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD. DR OF REVENUE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CO NDONATION OF DELAY. SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON TRIBUNAL ORDER OF BANGALORE BENC H RENDERED IN THE CASE OF J.N. CHANDRASHEKAR VS. ITO AS REPORTED IN 160 ITD 6 53 AND ALSO PLACED ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 9 RELIANCE ON ANOTHERTRIBUNAL ORDER OF MUMBAI BENCH R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF PRASHANT PROJECTS LIMITED VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 7167/ MUM/2011 DATED 04.09.2013 COPY SUBMITTED. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT . NIRMALA DEVI &ORS. AS REPORTED IN 118 ITR 507. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH SIDES IN RESPECT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. I FIND THAT TH E TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF J.N. CHANDRASHEKAR VS. ITO (SUPRA) ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE DR OF THE REVENUE IS NOT HELPING THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN AGR ICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND BECAUSE HIS CHILD WAS STUDYING AND THERE WAS DELAY OF 338 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED IN THAT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED HIS MAIN AND DOMINANT ACTIVITY AS BUSINESS OF COMMISSION AGENT OF COFFEE WHICH WAS PROVED FROM DEPOSITS IN BANK AND A SSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN WHEN BOARD EXAM OF HIS CHILD TOOK PLACE DURING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ABOUT ONE YEAR. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT IN THAT CASE , VAGUE REASONS WERE GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE DELAY OF ABOUT ONE YE AR BEING 338 DAYS AND FOR THIS REASON, THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY W AS REJECTED BY TRIBUNAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVEN UE THAT THE REASONS GIVEN ARE VAGUE AND THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER DOES NOT HELP THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 7. IN THE SECOND TRIBUNAL ORDER ON WHICH RELIANCE H AS BEEN PLACED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE I.E. PRASHANT PROJECTS LIMITED VS. DCIT (SU PRA), THE DELAY WAS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REGARDING THE REASONS FOR DELAY, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT BY MISTAKE THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFO RE THE AO AND WHEN THIS MISTAKE WAS NOTICED, THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO TRANSF ER THE APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THAT CASE THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS BECAUSE OF BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT APPEAL HAS BEE N FILED BEFORE THE RIGHT FORUM AND THEREFORE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 9 DELAY. IN THAT CASE, THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY 24.02.2008 BUT THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 09.02.2011 I.E. ALMOST A DELAY OF 3 YEARS. THESE FACTS ARE ALSO NOTED BY TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER THAT IN SEVERAL LETTERS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SAYING THAT THE APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT ( A) BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BEFORE CIT (A). UNDER THESE FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT AND HENCE, TH IS ORDER OF TRIBUNAL ALSO DOES NOT HELP THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 8. NOW I EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS JUDGM ENTS CITED BY LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI &ORS. (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT DELAY IN FILIN G OF APPEAL DUE TO MISTAKE OF COUNSEL IS REASONABLE CAUSE AND UNDER THESE FACTS, THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE MISTAKE WAS BONAFI DE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSE E APPROACHED THE PRESENT AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT HE DID NOT ADVICE PROPE RLY DURING THE RELEVANT TIME AND LATER ON, HE TOOK THE ASSESSEE TO THE PRESENT C OUNSEL WHO ADVICED THAT APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THER EFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IS HEL PING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. MOREOVER THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIO NS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO BE PREFE RRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DON E BECAUSE OF A NON DELIBERATE DELAY. HENCE, ONLY THING TO BE SEEN IS THIS THAT WH ETHER THE DELAY IS DELIBERATE AND IF THE DELAY IS NOT DELIBERATE DELAY, IT SHOULD BE CONDONED. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DEL AY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE AS A DELIBERATE DELAY AND HENC E, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, I CO NDONE THE DELAY AND THE APPEALS ARE ADMITTED. ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 9 9. REGARDING THE MERIT OF THESE APPEALS, IT WAS SUB MITTED BY LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE CIT(A) ON 31.01.2007 AND AS PER PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE DATE OF HEAR ING IS NOTED AS 10.11.2008 BUT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) IS DATED 22.02.201 7 I.E. AFTER MORE THAN 8 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING NOTED BY CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO. 3 OF HIS ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED 5 DAT ES ON WHICH HE ISSUED NOTICES TO ASSESSEE FOR HEARING DURING 31.07.2015 T O 23.12.2016 BUT THESE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFO RE, NO COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO ALSO, NO COMPLIANCE COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO SOM E UNAVOIDABLE REASONS AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961.HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATT ER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THIS IS DONE, THE ASSESSEE WILL MAKE PROPER COMPLIANCE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE HAD NO SERIOUS O BJECTION AGAINST RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. 10. THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION IN ALL THE THREE YEARS AFT ER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR REGARDING THE MERIT OF T HE CASE AT THE PRESENT STAGE. HENCE I DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 20 TH MARCH, 2018. /MS/ ITA NOS. 2795 TO 2797/BANG/2017 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.