Shri D. Moorthy, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2967/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7755 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2967/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI S. MOORTHY, C/O. M/S. PASS ASSOCIATES, NO.90, ARMENIAN STREET, 4 TH FLOOR, ORIENT CHAMBERS, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN : AFBPM7143Q V. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI 600 006. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ./ ITA NO. 2968/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI S. RAMESH, C/O. M/S. PASS ASSOCIATES, NO.90, ARMENIAN STREET, 4 TH FLOOR, ORIENT CHAMBERS, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN : ADIPR9963Q V. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI 600 006. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.02.2017 2 I.T.A. NO.2967/MDS/2016 & I.T.A. NO.2968/MDS/201 6 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI DATED 18.08.2016 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSID ERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING O FF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI D. ANAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 188 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSES SEES MISPLACED THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS). THEREFORE, THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEES WERE ALSO ENGAGED IN SEARCH ING THE ADDRESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO-PROMOTERS. THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT FIND OUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO-PROMOT ERS. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER INFORMED THE ASSESSEES THAT THE L ETTER SENT TO THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO-PROMOTERS WERE RETURNED BACK WITH AN ENDORSEMENT NO SUCH PERSON OR DOOR-LOCK. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE AS SESSEES COULD NOT FILE THE APPEALS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THEREFORE, THERE WAS 3 I.T.A. NO.2967/MDS/2016 & I.T.A. NO.2968/MDS/201 6 A DELAY OF 188 DAYS IN FILING BOTH THE APPEALS BEFO RE THE CIT (APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, , THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL SINCE THE ORDERS WERE MISPLACED. MOREOVER TO SUBS TANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES ON MERIT, THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO-P ROMOTERS NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE DELAY WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEES. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A. V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DAT E OF SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 188 DAYS DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEALS ARE NOT A SMALL MATTER. MERELY BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT LO CATE THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO-PROMOTERS, CANNOT BE REASON FOR NO T FILING THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEES WERE ASSISTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUN TANT. THEREFORE, THE CIT (APPEALS) RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO S UFFICIENT CASE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITH IN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISP UTE THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 188 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT (A PPEALS). THE CIT (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE 4 I.T.A. NO.2967/MDS/2016 & I.T.A. NO.2968/MDS/201 6 ASSESSEES. WHEN THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS THAT THE ORDE R WAS MISPLACED AND THE ASSESSEES HAS TO LOCATE THE ADDRESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO- PROMOTORS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES IN NO T FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE CIT (APPEALS) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N. FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASS ESSEE HAS TO FILE A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MISPL ACED, HE COULD NOT HAVE FILE THE APPEAL UNLESS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WA S TRACED OUT. MOREOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAI M OF CREDIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM T HE RESPECTIVE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO-PROMOTERS. IF NECESSARY, THE LOAN CREDITORS AND THE CO- PROMOTERS ALSO NEED TO BE EXAMINED. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT LOCATING THE ADDRESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CO-P ROMOTERS MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR FILING THE APPEAL. 5. IN THIS FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) BEFORE T HE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. MOREOVER, GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ANY WAY. GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY WO ULD DEFINITELY 5 I.T.A. NO.2967/MDS/2016 & I.T.A. NO.2968/MDS/201 6 PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT RETAIN SINGLE PIE OF THE TA X PAYER, UNLESS IT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF AL L THE FACTUAL ASPECT AND THE LEGAL POSITION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DEL AY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS SET ASIDE AND THE D ELAY OF 188 DAYS IN FILING BOTH THE APPEALS IS CONDONED. NOW BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES STAND RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). T HE CIT (APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO DISPOSE THE FILES ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEES. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. JR. /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A)-7, CHENNAI 4. /CIT, 5. /DR 6. /GF.