RALPHY EZEKIEL JHIRAD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4312/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4539 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Assessee Lawyers: N JAYANDRAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4312/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997 - 1998 ) I.T.A. NO.4313/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998 - 1999 ) I.T.A. NO.4314/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999 - 2000 ) SHRI RALPHY EZEKIEL JHIRAD, C/S. M/S. NATVARLAL VEPARI & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, ORICON HOUSE, 4 TH FLOOR, 12, K. DUBASH MARG, MUMBAI - 400 023. / V S. ITO, WARD 19(3)(2), R.NO.306, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI - 12. ./ PAN : ACYPJ4219N ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. JAYANDRAN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.S. BIST, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE THREE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVING THE AYS 1997 - 98 TO 1999 - 2000. SINCE, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION AROSE FROM THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. REFERR ING TO THE DELAY OF 7 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY MR. YOGENDRA KUMAR VED, WHO ATTEND TO THE TAX MATTERS, IN THIS REGARD AND REA D OUT THE RELEVANT PARAS FROM THE SAME WHICH READ AS UNDER: 2 4. I SAY THAT I WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WAS RECEIVED BY OUR CLIENT ON 26 TH APRIL 2014 AS PER THE INWARD STAMP OF THE FIRM AFFIXED ON THE SAID ORDER AND APPEAL IS DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 25 TH JUNE 2014. 5. I FURTHER SAY THAT WHEN I WAS PREPARING THE GROUNDS, I NOTICED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WAS RECEIVED BY MR. RALPHY EZEKIEL ZHIRAD ON 11 TH APRIL, 2014 AND THE APPEAL TO THE ITAT WAS DUE ON 10 TH JUNE 2014. IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, I PREPARED THE APPEAL AND THE SAME IS BEING FILED HEREWITH. 6. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID REASONS A ND WAS UNINTENTIONAL. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THERE IS A SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. C ONSIDERING THE REASONABLE CAUSE AS WELL AS THE SMALLNESS OF THE DELAY, WE CONDONE D THE DELAY OF 7 DAYS AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 4. REFERRING TO THE PENALTY, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE RELEVANT QUANTUM ORDER HAS R EACHED THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE ACT. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 2415, 2416 & 2417/MUM/2006, DATED 16.3.2007 IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE AND FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, RELEVANT LINES ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 4..... IN VIEW OF THIS, WE SET ASIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND DIRECT HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE TRIBUN AL ON THE QUANTUM APPEALS, WE FIND, IN ALL FAIRNESS, PENALTY ORDERS OF THE AO AND IMPUGNED ORDERS OF CIT (A) FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS SHOULD ALSO SET ASIDE AND ISSUES NEED TO BE REMANDED TO THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) ON QUANTUM ADDITIONS ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, WE REMAND T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THEY ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JANUARY, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R MUMBAI ; 12.1.2016 3 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI