Land Marvel Homes, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 3399/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7768 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B DURAI
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3399/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MS/. LAND MARVEL HOMES, NO.2, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, (BASEMENT), INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. PAN : AABFL4387N V. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE IV, CHENNAI 34. ( ! /APPELLANT) ( '# ! /RESPONDENT) ! $ /APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE '# ! $ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. DURAI PANDIAN, JCIT $ /DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2017 $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.02.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 15, CHENNAI DATED 16.09.2016 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. 2. SHRI D. ANAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 168 DAYS IN FILING THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE 2 I.T.A. NO.3399/MDS/2016 CIT (APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THE DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO MIXING UP OF THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL WITH OTHER PAPERS IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL W AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) ON 29.09.2014 IMMEDIATELY AFTER T HE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS TRACED OUT. THEREFORE THE ASSESS EE WAS PREVENTED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEA L. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) . 3. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI B. DURAI PANDIAN, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONAB LE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON. MIXING UP OF PAPERS WITH OTHER PAPERS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR CON DONING THE DELAY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF CONSIDERABLE MAGNITU DE IN TERMS OF TURNOVER. SINCE THERE WAS NO BONAFIDE REASON FOR N OT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (APPEALS), THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. EVEN THO UGH THE CIT 3 I.T.A. NO.3399/MDS/2016 (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE DELAY WAS 198 DAYS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY IN FACT WAS ONL Y 168 DAYS. THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS), WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE GOT MIX ED UP WITH OTHER PAPERS AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED IMMEDIATELY A FTER THE ORDER WAS TRACED OUT, WHETHER THAT CAN CONSTITUTE A REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MIXING UP OF THE ORDER WITH OTHER PAPERS IS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH MAY HAPPEN TO ANYONE AND THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT AN EXEMPTION TO THAT KIND OF HUMAN ERROR. EVEN THO UGH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE HUMAN ERROR CAN NOT BE AVOIDED IN ALL CASES. MOREOVER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE IN TEREST OF REVENUE IN ANYWAY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE CA USE OF JUSTICE. 5. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO ASSESS THE TAXABLE INCOME AND LEVY TAX THEREON. THE REVENUE CANNOT LE VY THE TAX UNLESS IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. THEREFORE, THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NOTHING WRONG IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE 4 I.T.A. NO.3399/MDS/2016 INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CL AIMS THAT THE ORDER WAS MIXED UP WITH OTHER PAPERS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUS E FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREF ORE, THE DELAY OF 168 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT (APPE ALS) IS HEREBY CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS REST ORED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). THE CIT (APPEALS) IS DI RECTED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GI VING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GAN ESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. JR. $ ' % & % /COPY TO: 1. ! /APPELLANT 2. '# ! /RESPONDENT 3. '() ( )/CIT(A) 4. '() /CIT, 5. ' % /DR 6. *+ /GF.