M/s Co-operative Cane Development Society Limited, Pilibhit V. Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit

ITA 40/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4393 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIDHI VERMA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.40/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-I, PILIBHIT VS M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY LTD., ASHOK COLONY, PILIBHIT-262001 PAN AACCC 6238 P (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI SH. RISHAB RASTOGI APPELLANT BY SMT. NIDHI VERMA, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY 25 /0 4 /2016 DATE OF HEARING 27.06 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS), BAREILLY DATED 19.11.2015 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S NOT CONDONED THE DELAY OF 49 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHOUT A PPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE BEING ILLNESS FOR DELA Y IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. 2 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO GROUND NO. 1 ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BELATED LY BY 49 DAYS AND REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND DI SMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE TO THE EFFECT THAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE WAS ILL. 4. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT DELAY IN FILING A PPEAL DUE TO MISTAKE OF COUNSEL THAT ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY OF 49 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE BEING ILLNESS FOR DELAY IN F ILING OF THE APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT . 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON C AREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE WITHOUT SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER. SINCE IN THE INSTANT C ASE, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY AS THE APPLICATION FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY WAS FILED WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE MEDICAL CERT IFICATE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT ADJUDICATE ON REST OF THE GROU NDS . HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AN D SEND MATTER 3 BACK TO THE CIT(A) WHO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.06.2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTR AR