Shri Ritesh Shokeen, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6220/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6495 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 6220 /DEL./201 4 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2008 - 09 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SM C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R ITA NO. 6 220 /DEL./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 8 - 0 9 RITESH SHOKEEN H.NO. 1, VILL. NILOTHI, NANGLOI, NEW DELHI VS. ITO WARD - 25 ( 4 ), NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: BHMPS2299P ) ASSESSEE BY: SH. K. SAMPAT , ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 0 8 / 0 3 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 9 / 0 3 /201 7 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 2 4 , NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 27 . 8 .201 4 FOR THE A.Y. 20 0 8 - 0 9 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESSED GROUND NO. 1 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH WAS EXPLAINED WITH PLAUSIBLE REASONS AND INCONTROVERTIBLE E VIDENCE. PAGE 2 OF 4 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS TAKEN AWAY BY THE EARLIER COUNSEL. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.10.2013 AS A CERTIFIED COPY AND APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 11.11.2013 . WHEREAS AS PER THE LD. CIT(A) THERE IS A DELAY OF 34 MONTHS AFTER PASSING THE ORDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSEE WAS GI VEN MANY OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING BUT NONE RESPONDED. THE LD. CIT(A) OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW AVAILABLE AT PAGE 167 ITR 471(SUPREME COURT), 278 ITR 291 (ALLAHABAD) 248 ITR 681 BY PERUSING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FLING THE APPEAL WHICH AS PER THE LD. CIT(A) IS 34 MONTHS AND AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN TIME. THE CAUSE HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND I AM CONVINCED WITH THE SAME AND THEREFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IS DIRECTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND FURTHER DIRECTED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON PAGE 3 OF 4 MERIT AND DECIDE THE CASE ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 . P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 9 . 0 3 .201 7. S D / - ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R DATED: 0 9 . 0 3 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE PAGE 4 OF 4 DRAFT DICTATED ON 8 .0 3 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 9 .0 3 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 9 .3.2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 9 .3.2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.