M/s Five College of Management & Technology, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Kanpur

ITA 648/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8236 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 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: 27-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHINAV MEHROTRA SHRI AJAY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.648/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.648/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 M/S FINE COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY, CHOWBEPUR ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AAATF 2834 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 17/05/2016 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS DELAY OF 62 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEAL IS THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO PREPARED THE APPEAL, HAD HANDED OVER THE APPEAL PAPERS TO THE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SAN EEP DUBEY ON 25/08/2016 AND IN THE EVENING OF 25/08/2016 ITSELF SHRI SANDEEP DUBEY HAD TO RUSH BACK TO HIS HOME AT FATEHPUR TO ATTEND A FA MILY BREVEREMENT. THAT AFTER CONCLUDING THE LAST RITES SHRI SANDEEP DUBEY REACHED BACK ON 11/09/2016 HOWEVER, HE FORGOT TO FILE THE APPEAL AN D ONLY ON 07/11/2016 APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY S HRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 27/09/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 / 09 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.648/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 2 WHILE GOING THROUGH THE OFFICE RECORDS HE REALIZED THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED AND THERE HAS OCCURRED A DELAY OF 62 DAYS. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE THE DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED. 3. LEARNED D. R. HAD NO OBJECTION IN CONDONING THE DELAY. 4. REGARDING MERITS OF THE CASE, LEARNED A. R. SUBM ITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND HAS MENTION ED CERTAIN NOTICES IN HIS ORDER BUT NONE OF THE NOTICES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE BE SET ASIDE TO THE OF FICE OF LEARNED CIT(A) SO THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS. LEARNED D . R. SUPPORTED THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED A. R. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THERE WAS A REASONAB LE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME THEREFO RE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND FINDING THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ORDER ON MERITS, I REMIT BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A ) WHO SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AFTER AFFO RDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 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