Sh. Dhanjit Singh, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 514/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 51421514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.514/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SH.DHANJIT SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HOUSE NO.2140,,PHASE VII, WARD 6(3), MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN: ABCPS7266B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DAT ED 09.12.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT). 2. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 27 DAYS. T HE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE WIT H REGARD TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL L ATE BY 27 DAYS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THO UGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) DISMISSING HIS APPEAL WAS RECEIVED IN TIME BUT APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 27 DAYS AS HE WAS EXPLORING THE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION AND HAD CONTACTED ANOTHER COUNSEL FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHO DID NOT FILE THE SAME IN TIME. THERE AFTER HE CONTACTED HIS EARLIER COUNSEL AND HENCE THE DELAY IN FILING THE A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON 10.4. 2012 AND HAS BEEN 2 FILED ON 7.5.2010, I.E. AFTER A DELAY OF 27 DAYS. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND MERIT I N THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW THEREOF, WE CONDONE THE DE LAY OF 27 DAYS AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL WAS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL AG AINST THE ADDITION OF RS.5,38,143/- IS NOT PRESSED AND HENCE THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. 5. THE ONLY ISSUE REMAINING TO BE ADJUDICATED IS RA ISED VIDE GROUND NO.2, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,61,720/- BY D ISALLOWING THE RENT DULY PAID TO THE TENANT BY WRONGLY INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BEN CH OF VISHAKHAPATNAM REPORTED IN ACIT VS. MERILYN SHIPPIN G & TRANSPORTS[136 ITD 23(SB)(VISHAKHAPATNAM)]. THOUGH THE SALARY FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH WAS PAYABLE WHICH IS TO BE DISAL LOWED. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS MADE ON AC COUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RENT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,61,720/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE NOW STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE 3 DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF VISHAKHAPATNAM REP ORTED IN ACIT VS. MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS[136 ITD 23(SB)(VISHAK HAPATNAM)] WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: WHERE THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION ITSELF AND NOTHING IS PAYABLE AT THE CLOSE OF THE Y EAR, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FO R NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT PAID DURING THE YE AR. 9. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESS EE AND IN CASE THE SAID AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED OUT OF SAID PAYMENTS IN LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASS ESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH AUGUST, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4