MRS NUTAN AJIT DANDEKAR, MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD - 4(3), THANE

ITA 3125/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6461 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI , ! BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . 3125 / /201 9 ((. . 2014-15 ) ITA NO.3125/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) MRS.NUTAN AJIT DANDEKAR, A-403, DAMODAR APARTMENTS, MANVELPADA ROAD, OPP.MORYA NAGAR, VIRAR EAST 401 305 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), ROOM NO.30, A-WING, 6 TH FLOOR, AASHAR IT PARK, WAGLE ESTATE, THANE 400 604 PAN/GIR NO: AHNPD9429L ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS KAVITA P. KAUSHIK / DATE OF HEARING : 15/09/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/09/2020 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, THANE [IN SHORT THE CIT(A)] DATED 13/03/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. DESPITE NOTICE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN THE COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. 2 ITA NO.3125/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) 3. MS. KAVITA P. KAUSHIK, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTME NT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISS ING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 22/11/2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,70,225/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE APPEAL WAS TIME BARRE D BY THREE MONTHS AND FIFTEEN DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION SEE KING CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITERATE LADY AND IS A PETTY FISH SELLER. IT IS FURTHER URGED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FROM V ARIOUS CHRONIC AILMENTS. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE REASONS CITED FOR DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. HEARD. ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EXAMINED. THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF RAM NATH SAO VS. GOBARDHAN SAO & OTHERS REPORTED AS 2002 (3) SCC 195 HAS HELD THAT CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE THE R ULE AND REFUSAL AN EXCEPTION. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OR ORDER 22, RULE-9 OF THE CPC O R ANY OTHER SIMILAR PROVISION SHOULD RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANC E SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WHEN NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA-FIDE IS I MPUTABLE TO A PARTY. THERE CANNOT BE A STRAIGHTJACKET FORMULA FOR ACCEPTING OR REJECTING EXPLANATION FURNISHED FOR DELAY CAUSED IN TAKING STEPS. COURTS SHOULD NOT PROCEED WITH THE TENDENCY OF FINDING FAULT WITH THE CAUSE SHOWN AND REJECT THE PETITION BY 3 ITA NO.3125/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) SLIPSHOD ORDER IN OVER JUBILATION OF DISPOSAL DRIVE . THE HONBLE APEX COURT FURTHER HELD THAT A PEDANTIC AND HYPER-TECHNICAL VI EW OF THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN REJECTING THE EXPL ANATION FURNISHED, WHEN STAKES ARE HIGH AND/OR ARGUABLE POINTS OF FACTS AND LAW ARE INVOLVED. WHILE CONSIDERING THE MATTER, THE COURT HAS TO STRIKE A B ALANCE BETWEEN RESULTANT EFFECT OF THE ORDER IT IS GOING TO PASS ON THE PART IES EITHER WAY. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDI A IN VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT, DELAY IN FILING OF FIRST AP PEAL IS CONDONED. THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES ON MERITS. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CI T(A) AND CO-OPERATE IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) SHALL GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHI LE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, IN THE TERMS AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY THE 1 5 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD./- (VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, +(/ DATED: 15/09/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) 4 ITA NO.3125/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , / THE APPELLANT , 2. -. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. /. ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. /. CIT 5. 01-.( , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 12345 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI