ITO, Kurukshetra V. Sh. Parminder Singh, Kurukshetra

ITA 489/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5225 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SSH B M MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 489/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ITO, VS. SH. PARMINDER SINGH WARD-2, H.NO. 704, SECTOR 3, UE, KURUKSHETRA KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. BJXPS0669A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SH. B.M.MONGA & ROHIT KAURA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, SR DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.02.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], KARNAL DATED 15.12.2015. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARED BY 376 DAYS. AN APPLICA TION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2 F.NO. PR. CIT/KNL/2016-17 (IIND APPEAL) DATED 09.0 8.2017 TO THE REGISTRAR, THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH SIR, SUB: CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING DEPTT. APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SH. PARMINDER SINGH, H.NO. 822, SECTOR 13, KARNAL A.Y.2011-12 REG. KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE SUBJECT. 2. WITH REGARDS TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) (COPY ENCLOSED) WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF PR. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL ON 04.01.2016 & FURTHER APPEAL I F ANY AGAINST THE ORDER WAS TO BE FILED BEFORE 25.02.2016 . INITIALLY ON PROCESSING THE ORDER, NO FURTHER APPEAL WAS CONS IDERED TO BE FILED BY THIS OFFICE. 3. LATER ON INSPECTION DONE BY THE OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HARYANA REGION, PANCHKU LA. IT WAS FELT NECESSARY TO FILE IIND APPEAL BEFORE THE I TAT, CHANDIGARH. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES NARRATED ABOVE & IN VIEW OF THE FACTS WHICH SURFACE D LATER ON INSPECTION BY THE HIGHER OFFICE, IT IS THEREFORE , REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY & ACCEPT THE PLEA IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE & ENTERTAIN THE IIND APPEAL FILED BY THE IT O, W-2, KURUKSHETRA, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (PAWAN SINGH TIMAR) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION REVEALS THAT THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS THAT EARLIER THE DEPARTMENT HAD 3 DECIDED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, LATER ON AN INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY CCIT AND IT WAS FELT NECESSARY TO FILE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNA L. IN OUR VIEW, THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT / APPLICANT WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITH IN STIPULATED PERIOD. THOUGH THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, AND THERE ARE CERTAI N OFFICIAL PROCEDURE IS REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED, HENCE, LIBERA L APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF THE STATE. 4. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE DEL AY HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE OF ANY OFFICIAL PROCEDURE RATHER AS COMES O UT FROM THE APPLICATION, IT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION OF THE DEP ARTMENT NOT TO COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ME RELY BECAUSE A HIGHER OFFICER OF THE APPLICANT LATER ON FEELS THAT APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED THAT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 376 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT IS NOT AS PER THE WH IMS AND WISHES OF THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO DECIDE AS TO WHEN THE APPEAL IS TO BE FILED RATHER SAME IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ALSO STANDS DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMIT ATION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.02.2018. (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23.02.2018 RKK 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR