M/s M.N. Rama Rao & Co., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 599/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1571 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARESH SAKA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.599(BANG)/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. M.N. RAMA RAO & CO. # 18, VICTORIA ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR, BANGALORE. APPELLANT VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI V.SRINIVASAN. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARESH SAKA. O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM : THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL AND IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , BANGALORE, DATED FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FILTERS AND FILTRATION SYSTEM FOR AUTOMOTIVE, INDUSTRIAL AND POLLUTION CON TROL APPLICATIONS. IT FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,41,280/- AND SUBSEQUENTLY FIL ED A REVISED RETURN ON 31-3-2006. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, [HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS ITA NO.599(BANG)/2010 PAGE 2 OF 4 'THE ACT'], THE AO MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES AND A DDITIONS. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT IN DOING SO, THERE WAS A DELA Y OF 352 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED THE FOLLOWING AS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY: THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS IN THE PROCESS OF ENTE RING INTO A JOINT VENTURE WITH AN ITALIAN COMPANY AND WA S ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE TS CERTIFICATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH THESE MATTERS AND THE MATTER O F FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT F OR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ESCAPED HIS ATTENTION 3. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAID REASON AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN SUF FICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL ON THE LAST DATE OF THE LIMITATION. HE, THEREFORE, REFUSED TO CONDONE THE SAME AND DISM ISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH PARTIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A ) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). SHRI V.SRINIVASAN , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFO RE US THAT THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS PRE-O CCUPIED WITH THE JOINT VENTURE WITH AN ITALIAN COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, FILING OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SMENT HAD ITA NO.599(BANG)/2010 PAGE 3 OF 4 ESCAPED HIS ATTENTION. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDER ED THIS EXPLANATION AT ALL. HE ONLY HELD THAT THE BUSINESS OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SO GREAT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD O NLY TRACE OUT THAT NO APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THIS ASSESSMEN T ORDER ONLY AFTER HE RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SEC .263 DATED 29-12-2008 ON 3-1-2009. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTER AS THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 AFTER A DEL AY OF 14 DAYS WHICH HAS BEEN CONDONED BY THE ITAT. BUT WE F IND THAT THIS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR THE REJECTION OF CONDON ATION PETITION OF DELAY. EACH APPLICATION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DEPENDENTLY. ACCORDING TO US, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AND THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE SAME IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ARE IN CLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 352 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE PRESIDENT (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER EKS ITA NO.599(BANG)/2010 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE