M/s Bodega Alcobev, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer- 1(1), Kanpur

ITA 549/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7259 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.549/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.549/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 M/S BODEGA ALCOBEV, 24/4, THE MALL, KANPUR. PAN:AAAAB 2346 E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, KANPUR, DATED 03/07/2017 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ADMITTED THE SAM E AS THE APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBM ITTED CONDONATION APPLICATION EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR NOT FILING TH E APPEAL IN TIME BUT THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS ACCORDING TO HIM THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VALID REASON. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED IN HIS CONDONATION APPLICATION THAT THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE STAFF WHO HAD RECEIVED THE ORDER ON SAID DATE BUT HAD HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30/09/2016 FOR WHICH THE DATE OF ORDER FOR SERVICE WAS TAKEN AS APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH JAISWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY S HRI C. K. SINGH, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 28/09/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/09/2018 I.T.A. NO.549/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 2 30/09/2016. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONCERNED STAFF W AS ALSO ENCLOSED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED A. R. HAS ALSO CONTEND ED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXP LAIN HIS CASE BEFORE TREATING THE REASON GIVEN IN THE CONDONATION APPLIC ATION AS NOT VALID. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, T HE AUTHORITY SHOULD CONSIDER IT SYMPATHETICALLY AND INSTEAD OF DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD DISPOSE IT OFF ON MERIT. IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS MERELY A TECHNICAL DEFAULT FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AS THE REASONS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEV ER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ASKED FOR THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DUL Y SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL AND DISPOSED IT ON MERIT, B UT HE DID NOT DO SO. I, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY I SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND DI RECT THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADJUDICA TE THE APPEAL ON MERIT IF THE ASSESSEE FILES BEFORE HIM PROPER MEDICAL CERTIF ICATE DULY SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/09 /2018) SD/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:28/09/2018 *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