RAJNI CASTERLINO, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO 22(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3385/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A P SINHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3385/M/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MR. RAJNI CASTELINO, ROW HOUSE NO.7/8, SHIV KUTIR, PLOT NO.105/106, SECTOR-29, VASHI, MUMBAI 400 703 PAN: AACPC0069K VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- 22(3)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI, A.P. SINHA, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH OJHA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2016 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-26, MUMBAI [(H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)]DATED 31.03.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10 ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS APPEAL INLIMINE OBSERVING THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CONDONATION PETITION FOR DELAY OF FOUR DAYS. HE FU RTHER SUBMITS THAT THE CONDONATION PETITION COULD NOT BE FILED BECAUSE THE RE WAS CHANGE IN COUNSEL AND THE NEW COUNSEL COULD NOT FILE THE CONDONATION PETITION FOR THE DELAY OF 4 DAYS. THEREFORE THE LD. COUNSEL REQUESTED FOR REST ORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ITA NO.3385/M/2015 MR. RAJNI CASTELINO 2 LD. CIT(A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WITH A DIRECT ION TO ACCEPT THE CONDONATION AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE CO NDONATION PETITION. 3. THE LD. D.R. HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IN RESTORI NG THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND TAKING THE TOTAL ITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO SUBMIT THE CONDONATION PETITION FOR THE DELAY OF 4 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL CONSIDERING THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2016. SD/- SD/- (N.K. PRADHAN) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30.11.2016. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.