LAXMI METAL MART, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5141/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 514119914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY PUNGLIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 5141/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 M/S. LAXMI METAL MART, 51, RELE BUILDING, 43, SITARAM PODDAR MARG, MUMBAI 400 002. / VS. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFL2338L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY PUNGLIA # $ % / DATE OF HEARING : 15/06/2015 # $ % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/06/2015 / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI DATED 23/5/2012 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE BELATED APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY CONDONING DELAY OF 2 MONTHS THEREBY DEPRIVING THE APPELLANT F ROM NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE REASON ASSIGNED FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME AND RULES MADE THERE UNDER. 2. LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH WAS BELATED BY A PER IOD OF TWO MONTHS. LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND AP PEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF NON-CONDONATION OF DELAY. . / ITA NO. 5141/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2 3. TO SUPPORT THE CONDONATION OF DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE COPY OF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ENCLOSED WITH THE APPEAL PAPERS AND WHICH READ AS UNDER: I, MR. MOHANLAL SETHIA, PARTNER OF M/S. LAXMI MET AL MART, HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT 51, RELE BUILDING, 43 SITARAM PODDAR MARG (FANASWAD I), MUMBAI 400002, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM : (1) THAT I HAD FILED MY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 29/9/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,07,672/- (2) THAT I HAD RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S. 143(3) FOR THE A.Y 2008-09 ON 03- 01-2001. (3) THAT MY ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE AND THEREFORE, I WANT TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ASSESSMENT. (4) THAT I AM UNAWARE ABOUT THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME T AX AND PARTICULARLY, THE APPEAL FILING PROCEDURES. (5) THAT WHEN I APPROACHED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR FI LING AN APPEAL ON THE MID OF MARCH 2011, HE HAS MADE ME AWARE THAT AN APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. (6) THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF THIS TIME LIMITS AND PROCEDU RES FOR FILING AN APPEAL. I, THEREFORE, REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY CAUSED IN F ILING OF THE APPEAL WHICH PROVISIONS ARE NOT AWARE. (7) THAT I MAY PLEASE REQUEST YOUR HONOURS THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO KINDLY CONDON E THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. WHAT IS STATED HEREINABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF M Y KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED AT MUMBAI THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2011. 3.1 LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED SUCH CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VAGUE A ND NOT ACCEPTABLE PER-SE FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IGNORANCE O F LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE. FOR HOLDING SO LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION THE FACT THAT ACCORDING TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2005-06 AND 20 07-08 THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS. IT IS IN THIS MANNER LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ALL THE FACTS ARE AV AILABLE ON RECORD WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE . 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONDUCT OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR NON-FILING OF APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME BEFORE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SAID TO BE . / ITA NO. 5141/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 3 HABITUAL AS LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS ADMITTED TH AT IN RESPECT OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN THE PR ESCRIBED TIME. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS SMALL I.E. TWO MONTHS AND ASSE SSEES RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON MERITS COULD NOT BE DENIED FOR THIS MINOR DELAY. T HEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AS IT IS A CASE OF SMALL ASSE SSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER I S RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND AD JUDICATE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AFTER G IVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND TO PRODUCE M ATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITS CASE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN VIEW OF AFOREMENTIONED DIRECTIONS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES I N THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/06/2015 # + , - 15/06/2015 # SD/- SD/- ( . . / B.R.BASKARAN ) . . /I.P.BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; , DATED 15/06/2015 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. /$ ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. /$ / CIT 5. 01 $23 , % 23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 4 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 0$ $ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . . ./ VM , SR. PS