RAMESHKUMAR NEMICHAND SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 14(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4183/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3132 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA VIJAY
• Assessee Lawyers: M N VAISHNAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 4183/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) SHRI RAMESHKUMAR NEMICHAND SHAH PURSHOTTAM BUILDING, ROOM NO.19, 1 ST MALHARRAO WADI, MUMBAI 400 002 APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(2)(3), EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 RESPONDEN T PAN: AAEPS9443F /BY APPELLANT : SHRI M. N. VAISHNAV, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT :SHRI CHANDRA VIJAY, D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2015 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-25, MUMBAI, DA TED 27.04.2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.4183/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [SHRI RAMESHKUMAR NEM ICHAND SHAH VS. ITO] PAGE 2 1 (A) ON FACT OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 25 MUMBAI ERRED IS NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 273 DAYS IN FILING AP PEAL PETITION. (B) THE APPELLANT HAD REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT REA SON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME AND HAD A JUSTIFICATI ON FOR THE DELAY OF 273 DAYS. 2. ON FACT OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 25, MUMBAI WAS WRONG IN NOT DECIDING THE APPEALS AGAINST LEVING TH E PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF RS.1,05,030/- ON MERIT. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,05,030/ - U/S. 271(1)(C), HOWEVER, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY LATE BY 273 DAYS WITH PRAYER TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE DELAY IS CLAIMED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEES CLERK WHO HAD MISPLACED THE PENALTY ORDER. HE REAL IZED HIS MISTAKE WHICH RESULTED IN FILING OF APPEAL DELAYED BY 273 DAYS. THE SAID EMPLOYEE OF ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFF IDAVIT BEFORE THE CONCERNED CIT(A) WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 5 OF T HE PAPER BOOK, INTER ALIA SAID BABULAL PUROHIT, SON OF SHRI BHIMAJI PUROHIT HAS DEPOSED THAT INADVERTENTLY FORGOT TO GI VE THE PENALTY ORDER TO ASSESSEE AND THIS IS THE REASON FO R DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION. THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY CIT(A) WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE CONTENTS OF THE S AME TO THE DEPONENT, WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. APART FROM THIS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR LAPSE ON PART O F HIS SUBORDINATE OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AS THE C ASE MAY BE. WE ARE LIBERAL ENOUGH TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN REVEN UES APPEAL ITA NO.4183/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [SHRI RAMESHKUMAR NEM ICHAND SHAH VS. ITO] PAGE 3 WHEN THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING APPEAL DUE TO COMMU NICATION GAP BETWEEN DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. SINCE, WE ARE RESTORING THE I SSUE ON PRELIMINARY STAGE; WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF ISSUE AT HAND. 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ASHWANI TANEJA ) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 30 /09/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE !# / ASSESSEE $ %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT * )+ / CIT (A) ,-./00'(1 '( 1 2 %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3/4567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / #8 1 9: ;% 1 '( 12 %&<