Ramesh Raju P, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 451/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5531 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JACINTA ZIMIK VASHAI
• Assessee Lawyers: HANUMESH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.451 & 452/BANG /2010 (ASST. YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07) SHRI P RAMESH RAJU, NO.654, 11 TH MAIN, 4 TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI HANUMESH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JACINTA ZIMIK VASHAI O R D E R PER SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVE LY. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) II AT BANGALORE DATED 8.1.2010. THE SE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 14 4 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NOS.451& 452/10 2 2. THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT COMPLE TED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY T HE CIT(A). 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WH EN THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE CIT(A) AND FURTHER THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142 ON 18.12.2007 AND THE ASSESS MENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 20.12.2007, THUS, SHOWING THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO FILE THE REQUIRED DETAILS. 4. THE CIT(A) HAD ALSO DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APP EAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID TAX ON THE RE TURNED INCOME. AS REGARDS THIS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE TAX TO HIS REPRESENTATIVE AUD ITOR WHO HAS BY OVER SIGHT NOT REMITTED THE SAME TO THE DEPARTMENT AND O N COMING TO KNOW ABOUT THE NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES, THE ASSESSEE HAS P AID THE TAXES DUE ALONG WITH THE INTEREST ON 30.3.2010. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS DELAY WAS ONLY DUE TO ILL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT WIL LFUL OR WANTON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE EVIDENCES T O PROVE THE PEAK CASH CREDITS AND IF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSES SEE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE HIS CASE. ITA NOS.451& 452/10 3 5. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE SAID REPRESE NTATION STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTU NITIES GIVEN TO HIM. 6. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE CIT(A)S ORDER STATING THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 39 DAYS IN F ILING THE APPEAL, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND REM IT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL B E GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH JUN, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (P MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 30/06/2011 ITA NOS.451& 452/10 4 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE.