Chandrasekhar Reddy Chinthala, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 349/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2884 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.349/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 SHRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY CHINTHALA, HYDERABAD ( PAN AENPC 1863 N) V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.H.NAIK DR DATE OF HEARING 27.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.06.2013 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III HYDERA BAD DATED 15.2.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 663 DAYS IN THE FILING OF THE FIRST APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, AND DI SMISSING THE SAME IN LIMINE. ITA NO.349/HYD/2013 SHRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY CHINTHALA, HYDERABAD 2 2. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 15 .2.2013. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 24.11.2011, W HEREAS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALOGNWITH DEMAND NOTICE WAS SERVE D ON ASSESSEE ON 31.12.2009, AND AS SUCH, THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEE N FILED ON OR BEFORE 30.1.2010, I.E. 30 TH DAY FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH DEMAND NOTICE. ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED TH AT THE OFFICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR THE ASSESSEE FORWARDED THE FIRST APPEAL PAPERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF, WITHOUT SENDING T HE SAME TO THE CIT(A), AND THAT MISTAKE COULD BE RECTIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY ON LY AFTER REALIZING THE MISTAKE BY FILING ANOTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 24.11.2011, WITH A DELAY OF 663 DAYS. THE CIT(A), NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CAUSE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, DECLINED TO CO NDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. IT IS THE CONTENT ION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSE E ACTED BONA FIDE, AND IT WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE THAT THE FIRST APPEAL PAPERS HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF , INSTEAD OF TO THE CIT(A). TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF BONA FIDE CON DUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE CHALL AN FOR PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE, WHICH HAS BEEN PAID ON 27.1.2010, AND COPY OF FORM NO.35, BEING FORM OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH IS DA TED 20.1.2010, COPIES OF WHICH ARE FILED BEFORE US. THE FORWARDING LETTE R ACCOMPANYING THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ALSO BEARS THE SEAL OF THE ADD L. CIT, RANGE-6, HYDERABAD ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF APPEAL DOCUM ENTS ON 28.1.2010. FROM THE PAPERS FILED BEFORE US, WE ARE CONVINCED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED IN A BONA FIDE MANNER IN PREFERRING THE FIRST APPEAL, BY PAYING THE APPEAL FEE IN TIME AND PREPARING THE ORIGINAL APPEA L PAPERS IN TIME, BUT IT IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF FORWARDING THE PAPERS TO AN I NCORRECT AUTHORITY, I.E. ITA NO.349/HYD/2013 SHRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY CHINTHALA, HYDERABAD 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF INSTEAD OF CIT(A), THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PREPARE A FRESH SET OF APPEAL PAPERS AND FORWARD TH E SAME TO THE CORRECT AUTHORITY ON REALIZING THE MISTAKE AT A LATER POINT OF TIME. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE DELAY OF 663 DAYS HAS OCCURRED IN F ILING THE APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CONSIDERING THE BONA FID E CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THIS CASE WAS REA SONABLE AND A LENIENT VIEW IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN. THEREFORE, CIT(A) S HOULD NOT HAVE DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR FRES H DISPOSAL OF THE SAME ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN, AFTER CO NDONING THE DELAY AND ADMITTING THE APPEAL. HE SHALL ACCORDINGLY DISPOS E OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CONCLUSION O F HEARING ON THE APPEAL ON 27.06.2013 SD/- SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER. DT/- 28 TH JUNE, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. 3 4. SHRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY CHINT H ALA, C/O. SHRI S.RAMA RAO, FLAT NO.102, SHIRYA'S ELEGANCE, NO.3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) III, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HYDERABAD 5 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.