N.Baladandayudam, Erode V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 3263/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7998 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS . 3263,3264 & 3265/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 TO 2012-13 AND S.P.NOS.23, 24 & 25/MDS/2017 SHRI N. BALADANDAYUDAM, 5/E-3, HAMSAVENI LAYOUT, GOUNDAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641036. PAN : AAOPB8764E V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 5(2), COIMBATORE. ( /APPELLANT) ( !' /RESPONDENT) # /APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE !' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIV AS, JCIT # /DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2017 # /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO 2012-13. SINCE COMMON ISSUE 2 ITA NOS.3263,3264&3265/MDS/2016 & SP NOS . 23,24 & 25/MDS/2017 ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS, WE HEA RD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OFF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FO R NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ADMITTEDLY , THERE WAS A DELAY OF 81 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED B ANK EMPLOYEE AND HE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. DUE TO OLD AGE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED I N PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. DUE TO ADVANCED AGE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A PPEALS) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 81 DAYS. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 81 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFAC TORILY THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. THEREFORE, THE C IT (APPEALS) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND REFUSED TO CONDONE TH E DELAY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THERE WAS A 3 ITA NOS.3263,3264&3265/MDS/2016 & SP NOS . 23,24 & 25/MDS/2017 DELAY OF 81 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSE E IS A RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IN THE ADVANCED AGE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THE REA SON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME IS ADVANCED AGE. THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OF FICER IS TO QUANTIFY THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME AND LEVY TAX TH EREON PROVIDED THE SAME IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT DUE TO OLD AGE, HE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) IN TIME. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING THE APPEAL D UE TO ADVANCED AGE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GOING TO GAIN ANYTHING IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. MOREOVER, THE TAX LIABILITY HAS TO BE QUANTIFIED PROVIDED THE SAME IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. THEREFORE, NOTHING WRONG IN EXAMINING THE TAX LIABIL ITY OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT BY THE CIT (APPEALS). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. GIVING ON E MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY NOT IN ANY WAY PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. IN THIS FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ACCORDINGL Y, THE DELAY OF 81 4 ITA NOS.3263,3264&3265/MDS/2016 & SP NOS . 23,24 & 25/MDS/2017 DAYS IS CONDONED AND ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE ARE RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). THE CIT (A PPEALS) IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OFF ALL THE APPEALS ON MERIT AF TER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL THE THREE STAY PETITIONS BECOME I NFRUCTUOUS, THEREFORE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. JR. # ! $ % $ /COPY TO: 1. /PETITIONER 2. !' /RESPONDENT 3. &' ( )/CIT(A)-3, COIMBATORE 4. &' /CIT 5. ! $ /DR 6. () /GF.