Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit., Hubli V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1. Bijapur., Bijapur

ITA 348/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 34824114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R DURAI
• Assessee Lawyers: PUKALE MANOJ DEVINDER LD
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay; Ignorance of law
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 194C; 201(1); 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & SHRI D.T GARASIA, JM ] I.T . A NO S . 348 & 349 /PNJ/201 4 A.Y S . 200 5 - 06 & 06 - 07 RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE VS. ACIT, CIR - 1, BIJAPUR KARKHANE NIYAMIT PAN:AAAAR042RE ( APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A NO . 3 50 /PNJ/2014 A.Y 2008 - 09 RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE VS. J CIT, CIR - 1, BIJAPUR KARKHANE NIYAMIT PAN:AAAAR042RE ( A PPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A NO S. 3 51 TO 357 /PNJ/2014 A.YS. 200 9 - 10 TO 2012 - 13 RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARKHANE NIYAMIT WARD - 1/ TDS WARD, BELGAUM /BAGALKOT PAN:AAAAR042RE ( APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT / ASSESSEE : SHRI PUKALE MANOJ DEVINDER, ADVOCATE, LD. A R FOR THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT : SHRI R. DURAI PANDIAN, LD.DR DATE OF HEARING: 22 - 01 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22 - 01 - 2015 ORDER PER SHRI D.T GARASIA, J M: ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) , BELGAUM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06, 06 - 07, 0 8 - 09 TO 12 - 13 2. ITA NOS. 3 48 TO 35 3 /PNJ/2014 PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 5 - 06, 06 - 07 & 08 - 09 TO 11 - 12 RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S143(3) OF THE ACT AND ITA NOS. 354 TO 357/PNJ/2014 FOR AYS09 - 10 TO 12 - 13 RELATE TO CHARGING OF IN TEREST U /S . 201 (1)/ (1A) OF THE ACT. 3. COMMON SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO - OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES OF MANUFACTURING OF SUGAR AND ITS BY - PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR 2 ITA NO S. 348 TO 357/PNJ/14 - M/S. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2012 - 13, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ABOVE RS.20,000/ - IN RESPECT OF HARVESTING CHARGES, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND LAW AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION. IN RESPECT OF A.Y 2005 - 06 IN ITA NO.348/PNJ/2014 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ABOVE RS.20,000/ - OF RS.60,75,515 TOWARDS HARVESTING CHARGES, RS.49,74,309/ - TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND RS.4,27,626/ - ON LAW AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS REGARDING THE HARVESTING CHARGES AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/ - IN EACH AND AGGREGATING OF EXCEEDING RS.50,000/ - PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS . THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID HARVESTING CHARGES, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND LAW AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES ABOVE RS.20,000/ - . BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE PAYMENTS U/S40 ( A ) (IA) OF THE I.T ACT 1961. REST OF THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS SIMILAR TYPE OF ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE A.O. SIMILARLY, IN A.Y S 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13 THE AO HAS ALSO CHARGED TDS /INTEREST U/S201(1)/201(1 A ) IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS MADE WITHOUT TDS : - S.NO NATURE OF PAYMENT TDS 201(1) INTR 20 1(1A) TOTAL 1. TOTAL PAYMENT FOR HARVESTING RS.1,77,21,561 6,00,797 1,44,191 7,44,988 WITH PAN RS1,54,92,188 @1% 1,54,922 37,181 1,92,103 WITHOUT PAN RS.22,29,373 @20% 4,45,875 1,01,010 5,52,885 2. TOTAL COMMISSION(INCENTIVE) PAID RS.9.93,292 24,253 5,821 30,074 WITH PAN 9,18,027@1% 9,180 2,203 11,383 WITHOUT PAN RS.75,365@20% 15,073 3,618 18,691 3. TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT PAN RS.22,75,718@20% 4,55,144 1,09,235 5,64,379 TOTAL DEMAND PAYABLE 10,80,194 2,59,247 13,39,441 3.1 REST FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS THE ADDITION WAS MADE U/S201(1)/201(1A) WAS MADE BY THE AO. 4. THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) BY NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I) THE SAI D AGREEMENT/CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPELLANT DEDUCTOR AND THE HARVESTING CONTRACTOR 3 ITA NO S. 348 TO 357/PNJ/14 - M/S. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT II) NEITHER OF THEM(APPELLANT DEDUCTOR OR HARVESTING CONTRACTOR) HAS DISPUTED THE SAID CONTRACTOR IN ANY COURT OF LAW AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH T HIS OFFICE. III) THE TERMS OF THE SAID CONTRACTOR AS FAR S THE HARVESTING/TRANSPORTATION ETC. SUGAR CANE TO THE APPELLANT DEDUCTORS FACTORY IS CONCERNED , THE SAME HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACTED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE SAID AGREEMENT. IV) PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT/CONTRACT NOW DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT DEDUCTOR, THE DEDUCTOR HAS ALREADY MADE THE PAYMENTS TO THE HARVESTING CONTRACTOR FOR HARVESTING AND TRANSPORTATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THUS, BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE SAID AGREEMENT HAVE ALREADY ACTED UPON AND FULFILLED THEIR RESPECTIVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SAID CONTRACT. FURTHER, THE DEDUCTOR HAS DEBITED THE SAID PAYMENTS IN ITS RESPECTIVE P&L ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS. V) THE DEDUCTOR IS FOUND TO BE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT BY THE AO FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE HARVESTING CONTRACTOR FOR HARVESTING AND TRANSPORTATION. ON THIS GROUND THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN MADE U/S40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THIS IS THE ONLY ISSUE DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. VI) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW THE IMPUGNED CONTRACT WAS INVALID. 8.2 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DISCUSSED ABOVE, I HAVE C OME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT: A) THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT/CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT DEDUCTOR AND HARVESTING CONTRACTORS FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF NON DEDUC TION OF TDS AND CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE U/S40(A)(IA) , WHICH IS ONLY THE ISSUE DISCUSSED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE AO AGAINST WHICH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT. B) THE APPELLANT HAS ACTED WITHOUT DUE DILIGENCE FOR NOT FILING APPE ALS FOR PERIODS EXTENDING TO MORE THAN FIVE YEARS IN SOME OF ITS APPEALS(BRIJ INDER SINGH VS. KANSHI RAM AIR 1919 - PC - 156 BARODA RAYON CORPORN LTD(GUJ) 87 STC 266, M.KRISHNA RAO D PHALKE VS. TRIMBAK AIR 1938 NAG.156 BALDEO LAL ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR (1960) 11 STC 104 (PAT), M.LOGANNATHAN VS. CIT (MAD) 302 ITR 139. C) CONDONATION OF DELAY - PARTY HAS TO SHOW REASON FOR DELAY FON THE 1 ST DAY OF LIMITATION PERIOD AND THEREAFTER FOR EACH DAY THEREAFTER - CONDONATION IN NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT COURT HAS TO EXCISE THE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION.(RANKAK & OTHERS VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD AIR 1962 SC361, JCIT VS. TRACTOR & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD (I.T.A.T., CHENNAI - TM) 104 ITD 149, MADHU DADHA VS. ACIT (MAD) 317 ITR 458). NO SUCH EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. D) IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT A GROUND TO CONDONE THE DELAY - EVERY ASSESSEE IS DUTY TO BOUND TO KNOW THE PROVISIONS OF LAW - ACT PRE SUPPOSES AN ASSESSEE TO KNOW ITS PROVISIONS(CIT VS. INDIA GOSPEL FELLOWSHIP TRUST(MAD) 331 ITR 283). E) THE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.S NULON INDIA LTD VS. CIT CMP NO.4755 OF 1944 DATED 24/01/1995 WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF 4 ITA NO S. 348 TO 357/PNJ/14 - M/S. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE PLEA THAT THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED BECAUSE THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER LEGAL GUIDANCE HAS HELD THAT: 3. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPLICATION U/S264 OF THE ACT WAS FILED BEYOND ONE YEAR AND THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1+ MONTHS IN FILING THE APPLICATION, . IT WAS STATED IN THE APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DEL AY THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER LEGAL GUIDANCE WHEN HE RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IT WA S , HOWEVER, POINTED BY MR.B.GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ONLY HAVING THE SERVICES OF A CH ARTERED ACCOUNT BUT ALSO A TAX CONSULTANT WHO A FORMER INDIAN REVENUE SERVICE GET PROPER LEGAL GUIDANCE CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE VALID. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR US TO INTERFERE, DISMISSED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS DISCUSSED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE LEGAL ADVICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. BESIDES, THE APPELLANT LIKE ASSESSEES HAVE LEGAL EXPERTS ON ITS PANEL AND THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ADVISED BY PROMINENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTS. IN THE CIR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT LEGAL ADVICE WAS NOT AVAILABLE FAILS. F) THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF J.B ADVANI & CO (P) LTD VS. R.D SHAH, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395(SC ) WHILE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS HELD T HAT: THE PARTY HAS TO SATISFY THE COURT THAT HE HAD THE SUFFICIENT COURSE FOR NOT PREFERRING THE APPEAL OR MAKING THE APPLICATION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, AND THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THAT THE EXPLANATION HAS TO COVER THE WHOLE OF THE PERIOD OF DELAY. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE OFFER AN EXPLANATION WHICH COVERS THE WHOLE OF THE PERIOD OF DELAY. THE DELAY IN THE APPELLANTS CASE RUNS INTO MORE THAN FIVE YEARS IN SOME CASES. HENCE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY. G) THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.6/2007 DATED 11/10/2007 RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN AS MUCH AS IT DEALS WITH ALLOWABILITY OF HARVESTING AND TRANSPORTATION EXP ENSES. THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DENIED THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENSES AS SUCH. THE ISSUE AT HAND IS NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE HARVESTING CONTRACTORS AND CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE U/S40(A)(IA) O F THE I.T ACT WHICH IS A STATUTORY PROVISION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON WHICH TDS UNDER THE I.T ACT HAS NOT BEEN MADE. H) IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 11 - 08 - 2014 FOR AY2012 - 13 FILED AFTER THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL BE FORE THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AND THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO AND THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FILED AFTER THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE SHRI S.K KULKARNI, ACCOUNTS OFFICER VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 04 - 02 - 2014 OF THE AO HAS ALSO AGREED TO THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,23,85,157/ - MADE BY THE AO FOR AY2012 - 12. THEREFORE , THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THAT IT WAS LIABLE TO MAKE TDS AS DISCUSSED IN THE 5 ITA NO S. 348 TO 357/PNJ/14 - M/S. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT ORDER OF THE AO AND THERE EXISTS NO GROUND FOR ITS RETRACTI ON FROM IT ACCEPTANCE/UNDERTAKING. 8.3 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ONLY RAISED IRRELEVANT ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT DEDUCTOR AND THE HARVESTING CONTRACTORS WHICH IS NOT T HE ISSUE DISCUSSED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE AO, IT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL BEFOR 27/01/2008 I.E. WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF SERVICE OF DEMAND NOTICE. THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT LIA BLE TO BE ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT IN J.B ADVANI & COMPANY(P) LTD, SUPRA AND THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN M.S NULON INDIA LTD, SUPRA WHICH ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ADMITTED. 5. DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD.AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION UNDER THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 11 OF THE I.T.A.T. RULES 1963. THE ASSESSEE SEEKS MAIN RELIEF AGAINST THE DENIAL OF ADMISSION OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL FOR ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL BY CONDONING THE DELAY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US HE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT . IN THE AFFIDAVIT THE CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AC T 1959 COMPRISING OF 20,000 MEMBERS FROM THE SURROUNDING AREA OF TIMMAPUR VILLAGE. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETYS MAIN OBJECT OF MANUFACTUR E OF SUGAR BY PROCURING CANE FROM MEMBERS AND NON - MEMBERS. THE AO FOUND THAT NO PROPER TDS COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THEREFOR E , THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - A.Y DT OF ORDER ASSESSED INC DEMAND 05 - 06 26/12/2007 NIL NIL 06 - 07 12/12/2008 08 - 09 20/12/2010 09 - 10 28/10/2011 10 - 11 31/01/2013 34,58,070 11 - 12 04/02/2014 9,98,14,520 4,19,41,850 7. INSPECTOR OF RECORDS WAS ALSO MADE EXERCISING POWER OF SURVEY ON 15/2/13 UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER TDS COMPLIANCE. ORDERS UNDER SECTION 201(1)/(1A) ARE PASSED ON 19/3/13 FOR VARIOUS YEARS AS TABULATED BELOW: A.Y DT OF ORDER DEMAND 09 - 10 19/03/2013 7,50,009 10 - 11 19/03/2013 96,762 6 ITA NO S. 348 TO 357/PNJ/14 - M/S. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT 11 - 12 19/03/2013 13,39,441 12 - 13 19/03/2013 11,77,551 TOTAL 33,63,763 5.1 THE ASSESS EE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT AN OPINION OR ADVICE FROM A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN THE MATTER OF WRITING/DEDUCTING OF TDS PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S40(A)(IA) R.W.S 194C AND TDS AMOUNT OF INTEREST U/S201(1/A) OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE GOT LEGAL OPINION FROM ONE PROFESSOR S.S GUPTA, EX - PRINCIPAL, K.G LAW COLLEGE, HUBLI. AS PER HIS OPINION/ADVICE THE HUGE DEMAND MADE BY THE AO IS NOT TENABLE. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS DELAY FROM ASSESSMENT 2005 - 06 IN FILING THE APPEAL BY SIX YEARS 3 MONTHS AND SO ON. BUT THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE LEGAL OPINION. THE LD.CIT(A) ON MERIT HAS NOT ADMITTED THE APPEAL. THUS, HE PRAYED BEFORE US THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED AND MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6 THE LD.DR HAS OBJECTED TO IT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED CHART FOR THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY : - ITANO AY DT OF ASMT ORDER ORDER U/S SERVED ON (APPROX) (APPROX) DUE DT FILED ON (APPROX) DELAY 348/14 05 - 06 26/12/07 143(3) 01/01/08 30/01/08 16/05/14 6Y 3 M 16 D 349/14 06 - 07 12/12/0 8 143(3) 01/01/09 30/01/09 16/05/14 5Y 3 M 16 D 350/14 08 - 09 20/12/10 143(3) 03/01/11 03/02/11 16/05/14 3Y 3M16D 351/14 09 - 10 28/10/11 143(3) 22/11/11 08/12/11 16/05/2014 2Y 5M08D 352/14 10 - 11 31/01/13 143(3) 01/02/13 02/03/13 16/05/14 1Y 2M14D 353/1 4 11 - 12 04/02/14 143(3) 05/02/14 07/03/14 25/03/14 0Y 0M 20D 354/14 09 - 10 19/03/13 201(1)/(1A) 21/03/13 20/04/13 16/05/14 1Y 0M26D 355/14 10 - 11 19/03/13 - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - 356/14 11 - 12 - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - 357/14 12 - 13 - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - - DO - FROM THE ABOVE CHART, WE FIND THAT IN AY2005 - 06 THE APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 6 YRS 3 MTHS 16 DAYS, WHICH IS MAXIMUM DELAY . THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) . THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN J.B ADVANI & CO(P) LTD HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ADMITTED BY HIM. THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERIT . IN THE CASE OF 7 ITA NO S. 348 TO 357/PNJ/14 - M/S. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT WILLIAM FINANCIAL SERVICES OF THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 262 ITR 595(GAU) , WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON MERIT ON THE G ROUND THAT THE DECISION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY MUST BE DECIDED ON MERIT THE COURT MUST BE LIBERAL IN CONDOING THE DELAY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO EXERCISE THE POWER WITH REASONABLE CAUSE WHERE THE DELAY WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED . SUCH MISPLACEMENT OCCURRED BE CAUSE CONTINUOUS ILLNESS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH REASON MUST BE SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT . WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATKA CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETYS MA IN OBJECT IS TO MANUFACTURE OF SUGARS BY PROCURING CANE FROM MEMBERS AND NON - MEMBERS. THUS, THE SOCIETY RUNS ON CO - OPERATIVE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OBTAIN THE LEGAL ADVICE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEES SUGAR FACTORY WAS RUNNING IN LOSS FOR SO MANY YEAR S. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) . THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED LEGAL OPINION FROM AN EX - PRINCIPAL , G.K.LAW COLLEGE, HUBLI. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTOOD THE LEGAL POSITION . WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) . THE APPEAL MAY NOT BE DECIDED ON TECHNICAL GROUND, BUT IT MUST BE DECIDED ON MERIT IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS HUGE MONEY OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE CONDONE THE AFORESAID DELAY IN FILING ALL THE APPEALS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APP EAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 8 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 - 01 - 2015 SD/ - SD - ( P. K. BANSAL ) ( D.T GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 /01/2015 8 ITA NO S. 348 TO 357/PNJ/14 - M/S. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT **PRADIP ( SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. A PPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. 5. THE CIT CONCERNED THE D . R 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .