Naugawn Kalyanpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Pilibhit V. Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit

ITA 46/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78527 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.46/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007 - 08 NAUGAWAN KALYANPUR SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD., VILL NAUGAWAN KALYANPUR, BLOCK MARAURI, DISTT. PILIPHIT. PAN:AAAAN6310K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - II, PILIBHIT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 08/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 7 /05/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A), BAREILLY DATED 20/09/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 144 DAYS ONLY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY 2 A.O. ARE ERRONE OUS IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH HAS BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED IN THE CONDONATION APPLICATION. 3. THAT O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PROVIDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE THE ARGUMENTS ON THE POINT OF DELAY. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON PRESUMPTIONS TOO. 5. THAT OUT OF 32 APPEALS ON IDENTICAL POINTS, 31 APPEALS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) OUT OF WHICH 07 APPEALS WERE FILLED BARRED BY TIME OUT OF WHICH, DELAY CO NDONATION APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN FILLED WITH 04 APPEALS EVEN THEN IMPLIEDLY DELAY HAS BEEN CONDONED BY LD. CIT(A). 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE NOT OPTING THE LIBERAL VIEW IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. A.O. (ITO) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271B. 8. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE U.P. COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND BYLAWS ARE BINDING UPON THE APPELLANT. 9. THAT THE AUDIT OF THE APPELLANT U/S 64 OF THE U.P. COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ACCOUNTANT/ AUDITOR APPOINTED BY THE STATE GOVT./ REGISTRAR OF THE SOCIETY. 3 10. THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT A TRADER AND HAVE GOT ONLY MARGIN MONEY/ COMMISSI ON. PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44AB ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 11. THAT THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION IS BEING FILLED HEREWITH SO THAT THE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. 12. THAT THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO AD D, AMEND, AFTER VARY AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREAS WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPEAL WAS DELAYED BY 30 DAYS AND THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DELAY IN FACT OCCURRED DUE TO CARELESSNESS OF THE OFFICIAL RECEIVING THE PENALTY ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE/AFFIDAVIT. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE/AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREAFT ER THE CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THE APPEAL REGARDING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND IF THE DELAY IS FOUND TO BE CONDONABLE, THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERIT. AT THIS JUNCTURE , WE DO NOT MAKE ANY OBSERVATION REGARDING THE ME RIT OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF 4 CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 7 /05/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR