MOHD. GAFURDUDDIN F. SIDDIQUI, MUMBAI V. ITO 15(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4441/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92913 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.4441 & 4442/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MOHD. GAFURUDDIN F.SIDDIQUI, FLAT NO.1, GR. FLOR. SAADATH MANZIL, 35, BORA ST. NULL BAZAR, BEHIND SAFAI MASJID, MUMBAI-400003 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- 15(3)(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI ( ! ' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO. AAPPS1966C ! ' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA # / REVENUE BY SHRI YOGESH KAMAT $ #% & ' ' / DATE OF HEARING : 15/06/2015 & ' ' / DATE OF ORDER: 15/06/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. ONE APPEAL PERTAINS TO QUANTUM ADDITI ON (ITA NO. 4441/MUM/2012) AND REMAINING ONE PERTAINS TO MOHD. GAFURUDDIN F.SIDDIQUI ITA NOS.4441 & 4442/MUM/12 2 PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT), WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE IS AGG RIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/05/2012, IN NOT CONDONI NG THE DELAY BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUM BAI. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, SHRI VIJAY MEHTA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EXPLAINED THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL, THE DELAY IS OF 338 DAYS, WHEREAS I N PENALTY APPEAL, THE DELAY IS OF 157 DAYS, WHICH WER E NOT CONDONED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) BY PLEADING THAT IF DELAY IS CONDONED, PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A GOOD CASE ON MERIT AND IF NOT CONDONED IT WILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONDONED THE DELAY FOR THE SAM E ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PENALTIES IMP OSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR, SHRI YO GESH KAMAT, CONTENDED THAT IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY, WH ICH MAY NOT BE CONDONED. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE APPEALS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD B E CONDEMNED UNHEARD, THEREFORE, WE CONDONED THE DELAY AND DIRECT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ADJUDIC ATE BOTH THE APPEALS ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDL ESS TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENC E, IF ANY, MOHD. GAFURUDDIN F.SIDDIQUI ITA NOS.4441 & 4442/MUM/12 3 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THUS, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 15/06/2015. SD/ - (RAJENDRA) SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ % MUMBAI; ( DATED : 15/06/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 $ 1' ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. P4. 0 0 $ 1' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 3#4 .' , 0 *+' * 5 , $ % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 7% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+' .' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ % / ITAT, MUMBAI