M/s. Soundarya Decorators Private Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 3455/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6257 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' , $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3455/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S SOUNDARYA DECORATORS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.26, SURVEY NOS.2&3, PORUR VILLAGE, KOLATHUR POST, KEEZHKOTTAIYUR, CHENNAI - 600 127. PAN : AAFCS 8646 C V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 6(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, JCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.2019 34) / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2019 / 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) -16, CHENN AI, DATED 31.10.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1054 DAYS IN FI LING THE APPEAL 2 I.T.A. NO.3455/CHNY/18 BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ORIGINAL DEMAND NOTICE WAS LOST AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL WIT HIN THE TIME LIMIT. THE LD.COUNSEL PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AGRA BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL V. ITO (2016) 69 TAXMANN.COM 352. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD H AVE OBTAINED THE DEMAND NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINC E NO EFFORT WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN A COPY OF DEMAND NO TICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY REF USED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1054 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(APPEALS). DEMAND NOTICE NORMALLY FORMS PART OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS MISPLACED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PART OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MISPLACED. WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THE OBJECT OF INCOM E-TAX PROCEEDING IS TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCO ME OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO.3455/CHNY/18 ASSESSEE AND LEVY TAX THEREON AND COLLECT THE SAME. UNLESS THE LEVY OF TAX IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE REVENUE CANNO T LEVY ANY INCOME-TAX. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( APPEALS) HAS TO BE VIEWED THAT NO RIGHT WAS VESTED ON THE DEPARTMENT M ERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE CONCEP T OF LIMITATION IS THAT THE VESTED RIGHT SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED SO LI GHTLY. IN THIS CASE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT ANY RIGHT WAS VESTED ON THE DEPA RTMENT MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). IN OTHER WORDS, UNLESS IT IS AUTHORI ZED BY LAW, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT LEVY ANY TAX. THEREFORE, THE VES TED RIGHT IS ALIEN TO THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDING. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 1054 DAYS IN FI LING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE INT EREST OF REVENUE IN ANY WAY. IN OTHER WORDS, CONDONING THE DELAY WO ULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE ON THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE INCO ME-TAX ACT FOR REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS TRIB UNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE 4 I.T.A. NO.3455/CHNY/18 CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE DELAY OF 1054 DAY S IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM IS CONDONED. NOW THE APPEAL IS R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL D ISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 30 TH APRIL, 2019. KRI. / -278 98)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 :2 () /CIT(A)-16, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 6, CHENNAI-34 5. 8; -2 /DR 6. <( = /GF.