Mohd. Azad, Ghaziabad V. ITO WARD - 1(5), Ghaziabad

ITA 3941/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7694 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: FRIDAY NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3941/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 MOHD. AZAD KALLUGHADI, DASNA DEHAT, GHAZIABAD. PAN: BOBPA8344F VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(15), GHAZIABAD. APPLICANT BY SHRI VED JAIN, CA REVENUE BY MS RINKU SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 31.1..2019 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GHAZIABAD {CIT(A)} FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 IN APPEAL NO.28/18-19, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DELAY OF 5 MONTHS AND WHEN THE EXPLANATION FOR DELAY WAS SOUGHT, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS ILLITERATE PERSON AND NEVER RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT HAVING COME TO KNOW OF THE SAID DATE OF HEARING 19.7.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.7.2019 2 ORDER, HE APPLIED FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER ON 15.6.2018 AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE REASON AND OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND AND THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON 13.12.2017 AND, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT HE HAD TO WAIT TILL 15.6.2018 TO RECEIVE THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT STAND TO GAIN BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO BE BARRED BY TIME AND THIS FACT ITSELF EVIDENCES THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE ANY ADVANTAGE BY NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITH DELAY. 4. LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE EARLY HEARING APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE GRANT OF ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS REFERRING TO THE ITNS TO SAY THAT THE ORDER AND THE DEMAND NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST WERE SERVED ON 13.12.2017, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE ACTUAL SERVICE AND THE PERSON TO WHOM THE SPEED POST WAS SERVED. FURTHER, AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT STAND TO GAIN BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION. IT IS THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT WHEN THE TECHNICALITIES ARE PITTED AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF DELIVERY OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE FORMER MUST GIVE WAY TO THE LATTER. BY CONDONING THE DELAY, THE HIGHEST THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT A CASE COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AND IT WOULD ALWAYS FURTHER THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINE D TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR THE ASSESSEE IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL WITH DELAY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, EARLY HEARING IS GRANTED AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH JULY, 2019 VJ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DRAFT DICTATED ON 19.7.2019 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.7.2019 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER ON THE WEBSITE FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 4