Rishi Ram Gupta, Panipat V. ITO, Panipat

ITA 6010/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52469 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: K C ANEJA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 6010/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6010/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2001-02 RISHI RAM GUPTA, S/O SH. HARGU LAL, H.NO. 1857, N.H.B.C. PANIPAT (PAN/GIR NO. : AEBPG6804R) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PANIPAT (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. K.C. ANEJA, A. R. DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27.10. 2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY AN D HENCE, ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE APPEAL. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144/147 O F THE IT ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 8.12.2008. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MA DE AS UNDER:- ESTIMATED INCOME FROM BUSINESS = `60000/- TOTAL INCOME TAX = ` 60000/- INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS = ` 20,18,8 00/- DISCUSSED ABOVE ITA NO. 6010/DEL/2010 2 4. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) IN FILING THE APPEAL, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 180 DAYS. ASSESS EE CLAIMED THAT COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE, WHO COULD NOT GIVE THE SAME TO HIM, RESULTING IN DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION. HE HEL D THAT BECAUSE OF THE DELAY, THE APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. LD. COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DUE TO FAILURE IN THE BUSINESS AND F AMILY DISTURBANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON TIME. HE PRAYED THAT THIS DE LAY MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE SAME ON MERITS. 6.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAN D RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS). 6.2 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION. WE FIND THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 180 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE REASONS FOR DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTABLE DUE TO ASSESSEES FAMILY DISTU RBANCES AND FAILURE ITA NO. 6010/DEL/2010 3 OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION, THE REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE COGENT ENOU GH. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND REMIT THE MATTE R TO THE FILES OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONS IDER THE SAME AFRESH ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESS EE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/8/2011 UPO N CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [C.L. SETHI C.L. SETHI C.L. SETHI C.L. SETHI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 11/8/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES