Mr. R. Prakash, Salem V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3015/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7888 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R DURAI
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 3015,3016 & 3017/MDS/2016 / // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14, 2014-15 SHRI R. PRAKASH, PROP. INDIANA MINERALS, RUKMANI ASHRAM, HASTHAMPATTI, SALEM 636 007. PAN:AABHR6621R V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZING PROCESSING CELL-TDS, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD ( / APPELLANT) ( !' / RESPONDENT) # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE !' # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. DURAIPANDIAN, SR.AR # / DATE OF HEARING : 08.12.2016 # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.12.2016 / // / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 23.08 .2016 REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 340 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS . SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE THREE APP EALS, WE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING THE SAME BY A COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS. 3015,3016 & 3017/MDS/2016 2. SHRI V. S. JAYAKUMAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE CIT (APPEALS) AND A WRI T PETITION HAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE APPEAL SINCE THE INTIMATION UNDER S ECTION 200A IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPE LLANTS ACCOUNTANT LEFT THE SERVICE ALL OF A SUDDEN AND THEREFORE THE APPEA L COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. HENCE THERE WAS A DELAY OF 340 DAYS IN FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SMT. G. INDHIRANI V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITA NOS.1019 ,1020 & 1021/MDS/2015, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE F EE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) CANNOT BE LEVIED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE DELAY OF 340 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED AND THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CI T (APPEALS) FOR RECONSIDERATION. 3. WE HEARD SHRI R. DURAIPANDIAN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. SHRI R. DURAIPANDIAN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE VERY FAIRLY STATED THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT CONSIDERED TH E APPEAL ON MERIT. THEREFORE THAT MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER S IDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 340 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE CIT (APPEA LS). IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNTANT LEFT SERVICE ALL OF SUDDEN. THERE WAS ALSO A CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO MAINTAINABLE OF APPEAL B EFORE CIT (APPEALS) 3 I.T.A. NOS. 3015,3016 & 3017/MDS/2016 AGAINST THE INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 200A. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. ACCORDINGL Y, THE DELAY OF 340 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE CIT (APPEALS) IS HEREBY CONDONED. NOW ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS RESTOR ED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). CIT (APPEALS) IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AND DECIDE THE SAME IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE. 5. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S . GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 8TH DECEMBER, 2016. JR. # ! $ % $ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. !' /RESPONDENT 3. &' ( ) /CIT(A) 4. &' /CIT 5. ! $ /DR 6. () /GF.