Sri Jadu Prasad Jadob, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T., Circle-37, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 40/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9427 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH BAJORIA; ARATI DEBNATH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 40/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 40/KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 SHRI JADU PRASAD JADOB,............................ .......................................APPELLANT 104A, A.P.C. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 009 [PAN: ACJPJ 2181 J] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ............................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, 8 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MANISH BAJORIA, C.A. AND SMT. ARATI DEBNATH, C .A., FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 02, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 03, 2017 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. .: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV, KOLKATA DATED 01.11.2013 WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINI BY TREATING THE SAME AS BARRED BY LIMITATION AFTER DECLINING TO CON DONE THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE SAME. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE DELAY OF 24 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING HIS APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS SOUGHT TO BE CONDONED BY FILING A CONDONATION PETITION, WHEREIN THE SAID DELAY WAS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS:- THAT YOUR PETITIONER HAD RECEIVED THE ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT AND DEMAND NOTICE ON 29.03.2013 AND THE SAME WAS DU LY I.T.A. NO. 40/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 HANDED OVER TO HIS ACCOUNTANT SRI SAHA ON 02.04.201 3 TO CONSULT WITH ADVOCATE ABOUT THE MATTER. THAT SRI SAHA AFTER GETTING INSTRUCTION FROM MY ADV OCATE HAD SOMEHOW MISPLACED THE SAID DOCUMENTS AND I HAVE NEVER BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE SAID FACTS TILL 10.05 .2013 AFTER RECEIVING A CALL FROM OUR ADVOCATE SRI A.K. G HOSH. THAT ON SAME DAY MYSELF WITH SRI SAHA AFTER SEARCHI NG ALL THE DOCUMENTS AT MY OFFICE, HAD BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE SAID COPY OF ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE IN A FILE AND THE S AME WAS HANDED OVER ON THE SAME DAY TO MY ADVOCATE FOR MAKI NG OUT THE NECESSARY PAPERS FOR FILING AN APPEAL AND THE S AID APPEAL PAPERS HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO ME ON 15.05.2 013. THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE SAID APPEAL ARISES OUT OF MISPLACEMENT OF THE RELATED DOCUMENTS WITHOUT WHICH THE APPEAL PAPERS COULD NOT BE MADE OUT AND THERE WAS N O DELIBERATE OR WILFUL NEGLECT IN THIS RESPECT BY THE PETITIONER. THAT YOUR PETITIONER STATES THAT SINCE THE DELAY WA S BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER YOUR PETITIONER EARNE STLY PRAYS BEFORE YOUR HONOUR TO CONDONE THE SAID UNINTENTIONA L DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERIT SO AS TO RENDER JUSTICE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING HIS APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE RELEVANT DO CUMENTS WERE MISPLACED AS STATED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THIS VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ). AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAN D ACQUISITION VS.- MST. KATIJI & OTHERS [167 ITR 471 (SC)], SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO DO EVEN- HANDED JUSTICE ON MERITS IN PREFERENCE TO APPROACH WHICH SCUTTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. EXPLAINING FURTHER, HONBLE SUP REME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY IS CONFERRED WITH A VIEW TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO LITIGANTS BY DI SPOSING OF THE CASES ON MERITS. IF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE MARGINAL DELAY OF 24 DAYS IN FILIN G HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ARE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPIRIT PROPOUNDED BY I.T.A. NO. 40/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MST. KATIJ I & OTHERS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING HIS APP EAL IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND SHOULD HAVE DISPOSED OF THE SAID APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE S ET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE A SSESESE IN FILING HIS APPEAL AND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAID APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 03, 2017. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER KOLKATA, THE 3 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI JADU PRASAD JADOB, 104A, A.P.C. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 009 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, 8 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS-XXIV, KOLKA TA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.