PIPLY TEXTILES & CHEMICALS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3241/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49547 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G P TRIVEDI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.3241/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PIPLY TEXTILES & CHEMICALS P. LTD. .. APPELLAN T KAMLESH DAVE, CAS, 38/304, ANAND NAGAR, VAKOLA POLICE STATION LANE, SANTACRUZ, (EAST), MUMBAI-400 055 PA NO.AADCP 1114G VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(2)(1) ,. RESPONDEN T AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: VISHWAS MEHENDALE, FOR THE APPELLANT G.P.TRIVEDI, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 26-07-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26-07-2011 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CALLED I NTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 25 TH JANUARY, 2010, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I .T.A NO.3241/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANTS BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL. 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIA L FACTS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURER OF SYNTHETIC ENAM EL PAINTS, PRIMERS, THINNERS AND ALL KIND OF INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PAINTS. AGGRIEVE D BY, INTER ALIA, DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10A /80IB, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE APPEAL WAS TIME BARRED BY 15 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FILED PETITION SEEKING CONDONATIO N OF DELAY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.11.2009, THE NOT ICE CAME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK LEFT. A FRESH NOTICE THEREFORE W AS ISSUED TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FIXING THE HEARING ON 15.12.2009. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE INFORMED THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED DO WN THE OFFICE AND REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER BE FIXED FOR HEARING SOMETIME IN JANUARY , 2010. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FOR HEARING ON 12.1.2010. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NONE APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 12.1.2010 AND IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IT WAS IN THIS BACKGROUND THAT THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I HAVE NO GROUND TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN PRESENTING THE APPEAL. THE CIT(A), T HEREFORE, DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL EXPARTE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITES OUR ATT ENTION TO AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATED 13.1.2010 ADDRESSED T O THE CIT(A), DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY HIS OFFICE, WHEREIN, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD SUFFERED HUGE FINANCIAL LOSS AND THEIR WORKING HAS PRACTICALLY COME TO STAN DSTILL AND, THEREFORE, APPELLANT MAY BE GIVEN SOME MORE TIME SO THAT NECESSARY DETAILS C AN BE OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHILE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER WAS PASSED ON 25.1.2010, THE REQUEST LETTER SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED IN CIT (A)S OFFICE ON 13.1.2010. IT I .T.A NO.3241/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3 CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T MAKE ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND IGNORED THE HEARING SCHEDULE BEFORE THE CIT(A). LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 2 0.7.2011, WHICH, INTER ALIA, STATES THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO INCOME TA X OFFICE TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT ON 12.1.2010 WAS HOSPITALIZED DUE TO SUDDEN ILLNESS AN D LATER EXPIRED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DUE TO THIS UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A). LEARNED COUNSEL PRA YS THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND UNDERTAKES THAT IN THE EVENT OF OPPORT UNITY BEING SO GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE WILL FULLY COOPERATE IN EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF APP EAL. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION THE MATTER BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION DENOVO ON MERITS INCLUDING ON THE MERITS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER DESER VES TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE ON MERITS ON THE PETITION SEEKING CO NDONATION OF DELAY AND ALSO, AS NECESSARY, ON THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) AS PER ABOVE DIRECTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2011 SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 26 TH JULY, 2011 PARIDA I .T.A NO.3241/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),20 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 9 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH C, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI I .T.A NO.3241/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 5