ACIT, Erode V. Chandrasekaran, Erode

ITA 341/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68647 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 341/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II, ERODE. VS. SHRI CHANDRASEKARAN, 2/75, URUMANDAMPALAYAM, VELLODE (P.O.), ERODE 638 112. [PAN : AFGPC6532G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N. BETGIRI, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 06 .0 8 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, COIMBATORE DATED 20.12.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT 2007-08. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TIME BARRED BY 719 DAYS IN FILING. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION AND STATES AS UNDER: 2. A DELAY OF 714 DAYS NOTED, BUT THE APPEAL PAPE RS IN THE ABOVE CASE WAS PREPARED AND DISPATCHED TO ITAT ON 03.03.2 011 WITH THE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II VI DE IN MEMORANDUM IN C.NO. 1541(J-II)/28/2010-11 DATED 25. 02.2011. SINCE THE SAME WERE WRONGLY DELIVERED TO ANOTHER OFFICE ( I.E. CIT(DR) OFFICE) I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.3 33 341 4141 41/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 2 DUE TO THE MISTAKE MADE IN THE DISPATCH SECTION, TH E PAPERS COULD NOT REACH THE CONCERNED OFFICE IN TIME.. 3. WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN TH E CONDONATION PETITION, THE LD. DR HAS PRAYED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS AN INORDINA TE DELAY OF 719 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THE APPEAL FILE WAS WRONGLY DELIVERED TO ANOTHER CIT-DR OFFICE DUE TO MISTAKE MADE IN THE DISPATCH SECTION. WE FIND THAT THE ABOV E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE LD. DR IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND NO VALID REASONS WERE GIVEN EXCEPT STATING THAT FILE WAS WRONGLY DELIVERED TO ANOTHER CIT-DR O FFICE. EVEN AFTER THE FILE WAS DELIVERED TO ANOTHER OFFICE, WE DO NOT THING TH AT THIS MUCH DELAY WILL TOOK PLACE TO REACH THE ITAT. IT IS SHEER LETHARGY ON TH E PART OF THE DEPARTMENT IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPE R REASON. 6. IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, NO DETAILS WERE MENTIONED, WHICH ARE VERY MUCH NECE SSARY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY OR NOT SUCH AS, WHEN THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE DELIVERED TO THE CIT-DR, TO WHOM IT WAS DELIVERED, THE RANGE OF THE CIT-DR, WHEN THOSE PAPERS WERE RECEIVED BACK BY THE DEPARTMENT, ETC. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDO NING THE DELAY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN ROUTINE MANNER, FILED THE APPLICATION FOR I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.3 33 341 4141 41/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 3 CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT IS A CASE OF CLEAR NEGLIGE NCE AND INACTION. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO CONDONE THE EXTR AORDINARY DELAY ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALO NE. THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL FILED THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 23 RD OF AUGUST, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 23.08.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.