Sh. Puneet Jain, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 3966/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97138 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI JAIN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3966/ DEL/ 2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3966 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. 200 8 - 09 SH. PUNEET JAIN PROP. M/S PARAS PAPER CENTRE, 517/2, MAHAVEERJI NAGAR, MEERUT (PAN: AANPJ4604J) ALSO AT : - C/O K.K. GARGA, 184 - A, ABULANE, MEERUT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. RAVI JAIN, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 02 - 0 9 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 02 - 0 9 - 2015 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), MEERUT DATED 28 . 3 .201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY BEING HEARD TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL FROM THE FORM NO. 35. PENALTY ORDER ITA NO. 3966/ DEL/ 2014 2 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL IS FILED AFTER OBTAINI NG CERTIFIED COPY OF PENALTY ORDER BECAUSE THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, PENALTY IMPOSED BY AO AND CONFIRM BY THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS HENCE, CONFIRMATION IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND NOT ACCORDING TO LAW. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. 2 . IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD PO ST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS . 3. DURING THE HEARING, SHRI RAVI JAIN, LD. CIT(DR) APPEARED AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE EVEN HAS NOT FILED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THER EFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 3966/ DEL/ 2014 3 BEING TIME BARRED, AS PER LAW . HE THEN REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE LD. CIT(A) S CONCLUSION AS UNDER: - THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY APPLICATION REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY ALSO. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND THE TIME PROVIDED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH RELEVANT RULES THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON THIS BASIS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SINCE THE APPEAL IS BEYOND TIME AND CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE NOT BEING CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4.1 AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON - COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY, BUT WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING THE APPLICATION ALONGWITH EVIDENCE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE SENDING BACK THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) , WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO ASSESSEE THAT HE SHOULD FILE THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH ITS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CONDONING THE SAME AND I F THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONVINCED ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, THEN AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY, HE ITA NO. 3966/ DEL/ 2014 4 SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE , AS PER LAW , ON MERITS AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 0 2 / 09 /20 15. S D / - S D / - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 02 / 09 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 3966/ DEL/ 2014 5