IMC, Government Industrial Training Insititute, Bareilly V. Income Tax Officer-E, Bareilly

ITA 371/LKW/2019

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals filed by various Government controlled Industrial Training Institutes in Bareilly against the Income Tax Office-Exemption, Bareilly, concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to being filed beyond the limitation period, citing election duty as an invalid reason for delay. The Tribunal, however, found that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them in limine. The Tribunal admitted the appeals for hearing, condoned the delay, and directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the cases on their merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123089 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.369/LKW/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 Income Tax Office-Exemption, Bareilly Vs. IMC Rajkiya Audyogik Prashikshan Sansthan (World Bank), 26, Civil Lines, Bareilly PAN AAAAI4396L ITA No.370/LKW/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 Income Tax Office-Exemption, Bareilly Vs. IMC Rajkiya Kashth Kala Audyogik Prashikshan Sansthan, 26, Civil Lines, Bareilly PAN AAAAI 4420M ITA No.371/LKW/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 Income Tax Office-Exemption, Bareilly Vs. IMC Government Industrial Training Institute 1, Manona Aonla, Bareilly PAN AAAAI 2752A ITA No.372/LKW/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 Income Tax Office-Exemption, Bareilly Vs. IMC Rajkiya Audyogik Prashikshan Sansthan, Faridpur, Bareilly PAN AAAAI 4397M (Respondent) (Appellant) None (Adj. Application) Appellant by Shri Harish Gidwani, DR Respondent by 17/04/2023 Date of hearing 19/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 2 ITA No. 369 to 372/Lkw/2019 O R D E R The above captioned four appeals have been preferred by the assessees for A.Y. 2014-15 and are identical. Accordingly, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. None was present on behalf of the assessees when the appeals were called out for hearing. However, adjournments were placed before me praying for adjournments in all the four appeals since the ld. AR was suffering from throat infection. 3. A perusal of order sheet entries show that these appeals were first listed for hearing on 08.08.2019 and since then the hearing has been adjourned on as many as twenty two occasions either on the request of the ld. AR or for the reason that none was present on behalf of the assessees. Accordingly, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I reject the adjournment applications received for today’s hearing and proceed to hear the appeals ex- parte qua the assessee. 4. A perusal of the records shows that all the four appeals were filed before this Tribunal beyond the limitation period and are delayed by 590 days. In this regard, the assessees have filed delay condonation applications, which are duly supported by affidavits and wherein, it has been deposed that the appeals could not be filed in time before the Tribunal because of ill health of the Accountant of the assessees. 5. The ld. Sr. DR, opposed the assessees’ applications for condonation of delay. 6. As far as, the issue of condonation of delay is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that no assessee will benefit from delay in filing of the appeals. Furthermore, in the present cases, the assessees are Government controlled Industrial Training Institutes and their bona fide cannot be doubted. 3 ITA No. 369 to 372/Lkw/2019 Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and admit all the four appeals for hearing. 7. A perusal of the records shows that all the four captioned appeals were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) without admitting them. The reason for dismissal of the appeals by the ld. CIT(A) is that the appeals before him were filed beyond the limitation period for the reason that the authorized person was engaged in election duty. The ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that being away on election duty was not a valid reason for not filing the appeals within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeals in limine without condoning the delay and without even examining the issues before him on merits. 8. I am of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was not correct in not condoning the delay and he was expected to consider the issues before him and decide the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them in limine without admitting the same on the ground that the same were filed belatedly. Accordingly, I direct the ld. First Appellate Authority to condone the delay in all the four captioned appeals and, thereafter, decide the issues before him on merits, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessees to explain their cases. Thus, the appeals are restored to the file of the ld. First Appellate Authority with the above mentioned directions. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 19/04/2023) Sd/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Aks – Dtd. 19/04/2023 4 ITA No. 369 to 372/Lkw/2019 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) Departmental Representative (5) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar