Chander Singh Bhandari, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3768/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69155 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAMEER SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. C. MEENA ACCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3768 / DEL/ 2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) CHANDER SINGH BHANDARI, VS. ITO, WARD 2(4), D-69, FREEDOM FIGHTER ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI DELHI PAN : ADXPB3143R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI SHAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER PER U.B.S.BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) V, NEW DELHI DATED 13.01.2011, RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) FOR NON AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON MERIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O. HAS JUST BEEN CONFIRMED WITHOUT DISCUSSING AND CONSIDER ING THE GROUNDS INDIVIDUALLY AND SEPARATELY. 2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED LATE BY 108 DAYS, FOR WH ICH DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTRY. IN RES PONSE TO THE DEFECT MEMO, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT HE IS SUFFERING FROM SUGAR AND HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE. HE MOSTLY RESIDES IN HIS NATIVE VILLAGE BEING BIRTH PLACE IN ALMORA I.T.A. NO.3768/DEL/2011 2 IN HIS ANCESTRAL HOUSE. HE DID NOT VISIT DELHI IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY TO JULY 2011. ON HIS ARRIVAL TO DELHI ON 01.08.2011, HIS WIFE HANDED OVER THE APPEAL ORDER. THE ASSESSEE VISITED HIS TAX CONSULT ANT IMMEDIATELY AND GAVE THESE PAPERS TO HIM. SINCE THE APPEAL HAD ALREADY BECOME TIME BARRED, HE IMMEDIATELY FILED THE SAME AND IN THE CONDONATION P ETITION SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS NARRATED ALL THESE F ACTS AND IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT. IT WA S THUS PLEADED THAT SINCE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAS OCCURRED DUE TO GROS S MISTAKE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE WHO BEING ILLITERATE BELONGING TO ALMORA, DID NOT VISUALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE PAPERS AND DID NOT CARE TO SEND THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE BY POST OR EVEN THROUGH SOMEBODY. SINCE DELAY HAS BEEN CAUSED UNINTENTIONALLY, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE CONDONE D. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE ASSESS EES COUNSEL SENT AN APPLICATION STATING THEREIN THAT DUE TO CERTAIN URG ENT PERSONAL EXIGENCY HE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THE COMING WEEK AND THEREA FTER TILL 19 TH JULY 2013. HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AND ELABORATE THE NATURE OF UR GENT PERSONAL EXIGENCY. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, WE FIND THAT THIS IS A GENERAL TYPE OF PLEA RAISED IN THE APPLICATION, THE REFORE WE DECLINE TO ADJOURN THE HEARING AS THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJOURNED 3-4 TIMES EARLIER ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. A.R. AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE A PPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. D.R. 4. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT CONDONATION OF DELAY PET ITION MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SO FAR AS MERITS OF THE CASE ARE CONCERNED, LD. D.R. RELIED O N THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND PLEADED FOR ITS CONFIRMATION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD. D.R. ON THE POINT OF CONDONATI ON OF DELAY, CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AFFIDAVITS FILED . THE BASIS AND REASONING I.T.A. NO.3768/DEL/2011 3 GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY S UPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF HIS WIFE, IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 6. AFTER HEARING LD. D.R. AND CONSIDERING THE MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE AP PEAL EX-PARTE AFTER ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A), HE DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAIS ED IN THE APPEAL. ON THIS ACCOUNT, ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BE SAID TO B E PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. AS SUCH, WHILE ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , WE FIND IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AN D RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL A FRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL AS TO THE A.O. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 7. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND AUG., 2013. SD./- SD./- (B. C. MEENA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02 ND AUGUST, 2013 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI