Sh. Jastej Singh Chinna, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 430/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6199 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.430/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JASTEJ SINGH CHINNA, VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1) , MOHALI MOHALI PAN NO. AAIPC7971N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 08.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.07.2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2014 OF CIT (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PATIALA HAS ERRED BY NOT CON DONING THE DELAY OF 5 DAYS & WRONGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL & AL SO ERRED BY NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE GROUNDS ON MERIT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1271881/- MADE UNDER VARIOUS HEAD MENTIONED IN PARA 4 TO 11 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ALL ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT APPEAL WAS FILED LATE BEFORE CIT(A) BY FIVE DAYS. IT WAS EXPLAINED B EFORE HIM THAT APPEAL WAS 2 LATE BECAUSE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEES MRS. KULWINDER KAUR, WHO IS A OLD LADY AND SUFFERING FROM SUGAR & HYPERTENSION. SHE FORGOT TO HANDOVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH RESULTED INTO DELAY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE CIT(A) AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAIN ING THE DELAY WAS ALSO FILED BUT STILL THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY. H E MADE A PRAYER THAT DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY AN FIND THAT DELAY WAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BEFORE CIT(A) AND AN AFFID AVIT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BEFORE US. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY FIVE DAYS BEFORE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE DELAY OF 5 DAYS IS ONLY A SMALL DELAY WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN EXPL AINED, THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MERITS . 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.07.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 11 TH JULY, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR