Shri Satishkumar K.Patel, Gandhinagar V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 2922/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73068 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH MEHTA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2922/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 SHRI SATISH KUMAR K. PATEL, 10/95 PATEL VAS, PATANPURA TA. MANSA, GANDHINAGAR PAN: ALHPP 3541P VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI GIRISH MEHTA, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 24/02/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/02/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL FILED ON 17.03.2010 WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN F ILED ON 27.01.2010 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY OF MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF MONTHS, AS THE SICKNESS OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND IT WAS ALSO NOT SEEN WHETHER SO ME DIFFERENT C.A. HAD PREPARED AND FILED THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 05 .08.2010 AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 05.08.2010 AND WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AP PEAL WAS FILED ON 17.03.2010 BY CA SHRI SUNIL SANGHVI WHO APPEARED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHILE SHRI MEHUL C. PATEL AND SHRI MALAV SHAH HAD A PPEARED BEFORE THE AO AS NOTED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2009. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT CALLED FOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR SICKNESS AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 05.08.2010. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HA VE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS U/S.250 AS THE NOTICES U/S250 DATED 24.05.20 10 AND DATED 23.06.2010 ITA NO.2922/AHD/2010 SHRI SATISH KUMAR K. PATEL VS. ITO GANDHINAGAR. FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - WERE ISSUED AND THE APPELLANT HAD FILED WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS DATED 07.07.2010 AND 05.08.2010 AT THE TIME OF HEARINGS, AND THE LD. CIT(A) HEARD THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 2. THE REASON ASSIGNED BY LEARNED CIT(A) FOR NOT EN TERTAINING THIS APPEAL WAS AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SERVICE OF DEMAND NOTICE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS ME RELY STATED THAT HE REMAINED SICK FOR A SUBSTANTIAL TIME AND HAD TO FIN D ANOTHER CA FOR PREFERRING APPEAL. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT REGA RDING SICKNESS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND HAS BEEN GIVEN IN A CASUAL MANNER. IT IS ALSO NOT SEEN WHETHER SOME DIFFERENT CA HAS PREPARED AND FILED THE APPEAL. THE BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES SO AS TO CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY AS PER SECTION (3) OF SECTION 149. AS DISCUSSED, THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE ARE NOT TREATED AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL IS NOT ADMITTED. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN ON CERTAIN EVIDENCES THROUGH WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS T RIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE DUE TO WHICH THE SAID APPEAL WAS NOT FILED WITHIN TIME BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THERE WAS A D ELAY OF ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MONTH. THE FIRST REASON GIVEN WAS THAT T HERE WAS A CHANGE OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE BEFORE AO CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT APPEARED HAS NOT CO-OPERATED; THEREFORE, AN ANOTHER CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THIS APPEAL B EFORE LEARNED CIT(A). AS THE LUCK WOULD HAVE IT, THE NEW APPOINTE D CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT GOT SICK DUE TO WHICH THERE WAS A DELAY OF TWO AND A HALF MONTH. CONSIDERING A CASE LAW PRONOUNCED IN THE CAS E OF CIT V/S. FIVE STAR MARINE EXPORTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 218 (MAD), WE HEREBY DIRECT LEARNED CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE A PPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, WE H EREBY RESTORE THE ISSUE RAISED BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) TO BE DEC IDED ON MERITS; HENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.2922/AHD/2010 SHRI SATISH KUMAR K. PATEL VS. ITO GANDHINAGAR. FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/02/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD