K.Manickam (Late) represented by wife M.Jayanthi, Erode V. ACIT, Salem

ITA 2877/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86376 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTHJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASSESS- MENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 2873/MDS/2014 1992-93 MR.V.PATTABIRAMAN C/O.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. 112/1, PERIYAR STREET ERODE-638 001. PAN:AJKPP3398P ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, SALEM. 2874/MDS/2014 1992-93 MR.V.SIVAKUMAR C/O.S.SRIDHAR, ADV 112/1, PERIYAR STREET ERODE-638 001. PAN:ATMPS5790G ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, SALEM. 2875/MDS/2014 1992-93 MR. K.PALANI, C/O.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. 112/1, PERIYAR STREET ERODE-638 001. PAN:AJJPP4984E ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, SALEM. 2877/MDS/2014 1992-93 MRS. M.JAYANTHI , L/R OF LATE K.MANICKAM C/O.S.SRIDHAR, ADV 112/1, PERIYAR STREET ERODE-638 001. PAN:AEPPJ1862A ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, SALEM. / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH,JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 4 TH MARCH, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 TH MARCH, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS), SALEM DATED 30.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 92-93. AS THE ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS COMMON, THEY A RE HEARD 2 ITA NOS.2873 TO 2875 & 2877/MDS/2014 TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, ASSESSEES CHALLENGE THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN NOT CON DONING THE DELAY OF 657 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ALL THESE ASSESSEES FILED A PPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING E FFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN TAX CASE APP EAL NO.1316, 1320, 1314 AND 1325 OF 2010 DATED 6.4.201 1 IN THE CASE OF (S/SHRI V.PATTABIRAMAN, V.SIVAKUMAR, K. PALANI AND M.MANICKAM) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVIN G EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT LEVIED INTE REST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B ON THE INCOME ASSESSED IN TH E ORDER PASSED ON 24.10.2011. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST CANNOT BE CHARGED ON ASSESSED INCOME AND IT SHOULD BE CHARGED ON THE INCOME RETURNED IN VIEW OF THE THEN PREVAILING LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT. 3 ITA NOS.2873 TO 2875 & 2877/MDS/2014 HOWEVER THESE APPEALS WERE FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 657 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). TH E ASSESSEES HAVE GIVEN REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS UNDER:- SINCE THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED, THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 SERVED ON 05.11.2011 BY WHICH ORDER THE ORDER DATED 17.11.1995 IS RESTORED OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 05.12.2011, IS NOW FILED WITH A DELAY OF 646 DAYS. THE REASONS WHICH HAS RESULTED THE SAID DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 ARE AS UNDER:- A) AS THE MATTER RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992- 93 B) AS THE STARTING POINT OF THE LIS WAS IN FEBRUARY , 1993 C) AS THE MATTER OF THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER WITH T HE MATTERS OF SIMILARLY PLACED PERSONS WENT UP TO SUPREME COURT. D) AS MANY COUNSELS WERE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE REPRESENTATION. E) AS THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER HAS BEEN PURSUING HIS MATTER BEFORE CCIT, TRICHY FOR WAIVER OF INTEREST AND 4 ITA NOS.2873 TO 2875 & 2877/MDS/2014 F) AS THE GATHERING OF THE RELEVANT PAPERS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PROCEEDINGS REFERRED ABOVE TOOK LOT OF TIME. THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER COULD NOT FILE APP EAL IN TIME. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEES HAVE NOT OFFERED ANY SUITABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND THE APPE ALS NOW FILED ARE ONLY BECAUSE ASSESSEES THOUGHT THAT THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED IN GETTING WAIVER BENEFIT FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THEREFORE IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND NOT A GENUINE AND BONAFIDE DELAY. 4. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT AS THE AS SESSEE WAS PURSUING ONE OF THE REMEDIES I.E. BY FILING WAI VER PETITION BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR WA IVER OF INTEREST AND ALSO FOR VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT, ASSESSEES COULD NOT FILE APPEALS IN TIME WITH THE B ONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEES WOULD GET WAIVER BENEFIT FROM THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THEREFORE, HE PRA YS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 657 DAYS AND DECIDE THE ISS UE ON MERITS. 5 ITA NOS.2873 TO 2875 & 2877/MDS/2014 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED F OR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 657 DAYS. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND FINDINGS THEREIN, WE ARE NOT INCL INED TO ACCEPT HIS FINDINGS THAT THERE IS NO SUITABLE EXPL ANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE A PPEAL. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HIMSELF SAYS T HAT ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL WITH THE DELAY AFTER KNOWING THAT HE MAY NOT GET WAIVER BENEFIT FROM THE CHIEF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, THAT MEANS THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING R EMEDY WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WA S PURSUING ONE OF THE REMEDIES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR FILING OF APPEAL WITH THE DELAY AND PURSUING THAT REMEDY WAS NOT A GENUINE AND BONAFIDE. THEREF ORE, TAKING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS. WE THUS C ONDONE THE DELAY OF 657 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF 6 ITA NOS.2873 TO 2875 & 2877/MDS/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROV IDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES. 7. ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( $ &' ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &* ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER & /CHENNAI, , /DATED 27 TH MARCH, 2015 SOMU */0 10 / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 **5 /DR 6. 8 /GF .