Somayaji Estates Private Limited , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2974/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2034 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PREMI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE- PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A NO S . 2973 TO 2978 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 3 - 14 & 2014 - 15 M/S. SOMAYAJI ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 21/1, 5 TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE 560 027. PAN: AAFCS 3435F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6 (1) (2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. R. PREMI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 . 1 0 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 . 1 2 .2019 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE SIX APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-9, BANGALORE DATED 31.08.2018 OUT OF WHICH ONE ORDER IS REGARDING QUARTER 2, 3 AND 4 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AS WELL AS QUARTER 1 AND 2 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WHEREAS THE SECOND ORDER IS REGARDING QUARTER 4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AS PER GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 RAISED IN FIVE APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS. 2973 TO 2977/BANG/2018, THIS IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY OF APPROXIMATELY 914 TO 927 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THESE IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ITA NOS. 2973 TO 2978/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 4 SUMMARILY REJECTING THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE INTIMATION WAS NOT SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON TIME AS IT WAS SERVED ON A WRONG PERSON WHO DID NOT INFORM THE APPELLANT RESULTING INTO AN ERRONEOUS SERVICE OF THE INTIMATION AND HENCE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN COUNTING THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF DELAY FROM SUCH ORIGINAL DATE OF INTIMATION WHICH NEVER REACHED THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE DATE OF INTIMATION ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPELLANT CAME TO KNOW OF THE DEMAND AND ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPEAL ON MERITS BY ADMITTING THE APPEAL. 3. REGARDING THESE GROUNDS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA NO. 4 OF THIS COMBINED ORDER IN ITA NOS. 2973 TO 2977/BANG/2018 IN WHICH IT IS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE UNQUALIFIED PART TIME ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT HAVING PROPER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT APPEALS AND THEREFORE, APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONDONED AND MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A DECISION ON MERIT. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROPER EXPLANATION REGARDING HUGE DELAY OF MORE THAN 900 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED AND ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, WE REPRODUCE PARA NOS. 4 TO 7 FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THESE PARAS ARE AS UNDER. 4. THE FIVE APPEALS FILED ARE BELATED BY APPROXIMATELY 914 TO 927 DAYS. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN RESPECTIVE FORM 35, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AT BANGALORE. IN THE MATTER OF SOMAYAJI ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, ASSESSMENT YEAR 201314 PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL OF MR. BANTWAL RAGHNUTH SOMAYAJI AGED 60 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF SOMAYAJI ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED. THAT 1, THE ABOVE-NAMED PETITIONER, AM WELL CONVERSANT WITH THE FACTS STATED TO BELOW. THAT THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 OF THE COMPANY HAS ITA NOS. 2973 TO 2978/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 4 BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BP ORDER DATED 11/12/2014. THAT THE TIME FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS TO EXPIRE ON 10/12/2015. THAT THE UNQUALIFIED PART TIME ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT HAVING PROPER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT APPEALS AND THEREFORE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME THAT THE MEMO OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 27/05/2017 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 5. DURING THE HEARING ON VARIOUS DATED, THE SAME REASONS WERE REITERATED. FURTHER, ANOTHER APPLICATION DT. 21.07.2018 WAS ALSO FILED. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS WRONGLY ADVISED BY EARLIER CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. 6. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE FIRST ADVICE GIVEN BY THE ACCOUNTANT OR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS NOT CORRECT AND ON RECEIPT OF THE SECOND OPINION THESE APPEALS WERE FILED. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT I FIND THAT NO RECORD IS MADE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST ADVICE GIVEN BY THE ACCOUNTANT OR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THUS, THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 7. FURTHER, THE DELAY OF NINE HUNDRED PLUS CLAYS IS EXTRA ORDINARY DELAY AND SUFFICIENT REASONS HAVE NOT BEEN ADVANCED FOR THE SAME. THEREFORE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED BEING DELAYED BY MORE THAN NINE HUNDRED DAYS. 5. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT THIS WAS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE UNQUALIFIED PART TIME ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT HAVING PROPER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT APPEALS AND THEREFORE, APPEALS COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE DELAY IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOULD BE CONDONED AND HENCE, WE CONDONE THE SAME AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A DECISION ON MERIT IN ALL THESE CASES. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION ON MERIT IS CALLED FOR AT THE PRESENT STAGE. 6. REGARDING THE 6 TH APPEAL I.E. ITA NO. 2978/BANG/2018 IN RESPECT OF QUARTER 4, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND THE MATTER WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) ON MERIT. BUT SINCE IN THE REMAINING FIVE APPEALS FOR EARLIER PERIOD, WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A DECISION ON MERIT, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THIS APPEAL I.E. ITA NO. 2978/BANG/2018 FOR A LATER PERIOD SHOULD ALSO GO BACK TO THE FILE ITA NOS. 2973 TO 2978/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 4 OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION ON MERIT BECAUSE WHEN FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, THE MATTER IS GOING BACK TO LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION, IT IS FELT PROPER THAT IN ALL THE YEARS, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) SIMULTANEOUSLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 4 TH DECEMBER, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.