Mr. Prakash Chandra Joshi, Nainital V. ITO, Kashipur

ITA 5204/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86842 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY SENIOR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5204/DEL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA JOSHI, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R II, LAKHANPUR, TERA ROAD, KASHIPUR. RAMNAGAR, NAINITAL, UTTARAKHAND 244 715. (PAN : ADUPJ7117L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN DATED 22.10.2012 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IN LIMINE ON ACCOUNT OF NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED BEFORE HIM THAT HE WAS PHYSICALLY UNFIT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. BEFOR E US, THE APPEAL IS ALSO DELAYED, HOWEVER, A CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION HAS BEE N FILED AND IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN STAYING AT THE ADDRESS MARKED FOR THE DAK AT LAKHANPUR, TERA ROAD, RAMNAGAR, NAINITAL DUE TO POOR STATE OF THE B UILDING WHICH REQUIRED MASSIVE REPAIRS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THIS REASON, THE DAK DELIVERED AT THE SAID ADDRESS COULD 2 ITA NO.5204/DEL/2013 NOT REACH TO ASSESSEE IN TIME. IT WAS PLEADED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS STAYING AT MALLITAL, NAINITAL DURING THAT PERIOD AND HE WAS GE TTING MEDICAL TREATMENT, THEREFORE, DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND D UE TO PHYSICAL ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL OTHER REASONS MENTIONED DURING APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AS A UNIQUE CASE OF DELAY AND HEAR THE AP PEAL. 4. IN THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLEADED THA T THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL. CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND FOR THE REASON OF ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER REASONS NARRAT ED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LIKE NOT STAYING AT THE DAK ADDRESS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, OF COURSE AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 TS 3 ITA NO.5204/DEL/2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.