R.Padamchand Jain, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 3274/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4450 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. : 3274/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 SHRI R. PADAMCHAND JAIN, 6, CHANDRAPPAMUDALI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079. PAN: AAHPP0234G V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE WARD 5(1), CHENNAI-34. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 02.05.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.05.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI DATED 04.10.2016 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13. 2. ACCORDING TO SHRI M.KARUNAKARAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS A DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT 2 I.T.A. NO. 3274/MDS/2016 THE AUDITOR WAS BUSY IN FINALIZATION OF TAX AUDIT. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN T TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), HE COULD NOT DO SO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS DELAY ON THE PART OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT( APPEALS), THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO PENALIZE THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL WAS DUE TO THE AUDITOR BECAUSE HE WAS BUY IN FINALIZATION OF THE T AX AUDIT. HENCE AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGU E THE CASE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 3. WE HEARD SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS ADMITTEDLY A DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL B EFORE CIT(APPEALS). THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE AUDITOR IN FIN ALIZATION OF TAX AUDIT MAY NOT BE A REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. TH EREFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DEL AY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDL Y THERE WAS A DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APP EALS). THE REASON FOR DELAY IS THAT THE AUDITOR WAS BUSY IN FI NALIZATION OF TAX 3 I.T.A. NO. 3274/MDS/2016 AUDIT. THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL PROMPTLY. THE ASSESSEE ENGA GED THE AUDITOR AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO PREPARE THE APPEAL FO R FILING THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE AUDITOR COUL D NOT PREPARE THE SAME, SINCE HE WAS BUSY IN FINALIZATION OF TAX AUDIT. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IN TIME. ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY OF 6 DAYS IS CONDONED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CI T(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE. NOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS R ESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) IS DIRE CTED TO DISPOSE THE FILE ON MERIT BY GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST MAY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 31 ST MAY, 2017. JR. /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. !' /DR 6. #$ /GF