Smt. Sadhna Agarwal , Bareilly V. Income Tax officer , Bareilly

ITA 488/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78598 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.488/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008 - 09 SMT. SADHNA AGARWAL, 633, BRIJ LOK COLONY, BAREILLY. PAN:ADLPS0676H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.489/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008 - 09 SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL, 633, BRIJ LOK COLONY, BAREILLY. PAN:ABHPA5761G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY BOTH DATED 09 / 05 /2013 . BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 02/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 /07/2014 2 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ANNEXED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL ALONG WITH FORM - 35. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONDONATION APPLICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDS TO FILE BEFORE CIT(A). 3. LEAR NED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE APPEAL WAS FILED LATE BEFORE CIT(A) AND NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS FILED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER THAT NO SUCH CONDONATION APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FORM NO. 35 AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT MADE A REQUEST FOR THE SAME. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN UP THE MATTER DILIGENTLY. HAVING NOTED SO, HE SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT THIS ASPECT TO THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT THIS DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY LEARNED CIT (A). ON MERIT ALSO, HIS ORDER IS CRYPTIC. HENCE, WE FEEL TH AT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE CONDONATION APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS ON MERIT . HENCE , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FO R FRESH DECISION. LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS ORDER AND IF ANY SUCH APPLICATION IS FILED BEFORE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) SHOULD CONSIDER THE SAME AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THIS RESPECT AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE 3 ASSESSEE. IN CASE DELAY IS CONDONED BY CIT(A), THEN HE SHOULD DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APP EALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL 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: 1 7 /07/2014 *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