Dilip Kerba Maral, Pune V. Income tax Officer, Pune

ITA 296/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3679 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM / ITA NO. 296/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI DILIP KERBA MARAL, FLAT NO.G2, MAGADH SOCIETY, KARVE ROAD, ERANDWANE, PUNE-411 038. PAN : AQVPM7017L .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. DEEPA KHARE REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, PUNE DATED 23.11.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AS PER FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DECIDING NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT APP RECIATING THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT AND GENUINE REASON FOR THE DELAY. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.56,23,800/-. 2 ITA NO.296 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY OR SU BSTITUTE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTICE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 4 D AYS FOR FILING THE APPEAL. THAT WITH REGARD TO THIS DELAY, THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE FILED CONDONATION PETITION ALONG WITH MEDICAL DOCUMENTS STATING R EASONS FOR SUCH DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CO NDONATION PETITION AND MEDICAL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH REASONS FOR DELAY. IT APP EARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RICKSHAW DRIVER AND IS NOT WELL ACQUAINTED W ITH LEGAL PROCEDURE TO MOVE THE APPEAL. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FRO M SERIOUS AILMENT AND UNDERGOING TREATMENT WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE MEDICA L DOCUMENTS. THUS, IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE JUSTIFICATIO N RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS. WE THEREFORE CO NDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR APPRAISED THE BENCH THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) SINCE THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A RICKSHAW DRIVER, IS UNAWARE OF THE LEGAL PROCEDURE AND THEREFORE, D ID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES SERVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ISSUE IN CONTENTION IS WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.56,21,800/-. IT IS STATED BY THE LD. AR THAT ALL THE RICKSHAW DRIVERS DECIDED TO START A FUND FOR THEIR BENEFIT AND THEY FROM THEIR SAVINGS DONATED MONEY AND ALL OF THE AMOUNTS WAS ULTIMATELY DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS AILMENT FOR WHICH HE IS U NDERGOING TREATMENT AND FOR THESE REASONS ALSO, THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJUDICAT ED UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. HE HAS SIMPLY NOT CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR THER EFORE, PRAYED THAT 3 ITA NO.296 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 THE ASSESSEE IS READY TO EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOS ITS IN CONTENTION IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRAYED THAT THE MA TTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE PRAYER MADE BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDE D TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER CHANCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE E. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS AND ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.5 6,21,800/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH VARIOUS NOTICES OF HEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER RESULTING THE ASSESSMENT BEING COMPLETED U/S.143 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT ADJUDICATE ON THE MERITS AND SINCE THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THIS DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED BY THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. HERE AGAIN ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WA S UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.56,21,800/-. THE LD. AR DEM ONSTRATED THAT THERE OCCURRED REASONS BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT A LATER DATE MAKING IT TIME B ARRED AND THOSE REASONS WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, SINCE HE IS SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS AILMENT FOR WHICH HE IS ALSO UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREAT MENT. COPIES OF MEDICAL TREATMENT WERE FILED BEFORE US. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT A PERSON MAY EARN MONEY AND CO NTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY BY PAYING TAX BUT HE NEED NOT BE ALWAYS AWARE O F THE LEGAL PROCEDURES BECAUSE OF WHICH SOMETIMES, NOTICES FOR HEARING GOES UNANSWERED AND IN THIS CASE, SAME THING HAS HAPPENED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. IN ALL 4 ITA NO.296 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 TOTALITY, THE MERITS OF THE CASE NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ARE ALSO TO BE DETERMINED. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER PR OVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIMSELF BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WIT H ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CASE SO THAT THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- R.S.SYAL PA RTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2019. SB !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-2, PUNE. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , )*+ , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 5 ITA NO.296 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 22.02 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 22 .02 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER