Shree Ganesh Ventures, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 697/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7921 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'!# , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.697/MDS/2016 # &# /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHREE GANESH VENTURES, NO.14-A, ENNORE HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 019. PAN : AAOFS 0487 K V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE XII, CHENNAI. ( '( /APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) '( + , /APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.BANUSEKAR, C.A. )*'(+, /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT - +.$ /DATE OF HEARING : 05.10.2016 /0& +.$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -5, CHENNAI DATED 18.01.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. NO.697/MDS/2016 2. SHRI T.BANUSEKAR, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 154 DAYS IN FIL ING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION TO CO NDONE THE DELAY BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALONG WITH A CERTIFICATE ISSUED B Y MEDICAL PRACTITIONER. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM HYPER TENSION AND DIABETES AND T HE DOCTOR ADVISED HIM TO TAKE REST. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE MEDI CAL CERTIFICATE SAID TO BE ISSUED BY DR.SYED MD.THUFAIL AHMED, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO TAKE REST FOR A PERIOD FROM 20.12.2010 TO 22.05.201 1. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A ) WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE DEL AY OF 154 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RE-C ONSIDERATION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONAB LE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A), THE LEARNED 3 I.T.A. NO.697/MDS/2016 DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MAN AGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL, THE OTHER PARTNERS COULD HAVE SIGNED THE APPEAL PAPERS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR N OT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CO NFIRMED THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 154 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE WA S SUFFERING FROM HYPER TENSION AND DIABETES AND HE WAS ADVISED TO TA KE REST FROM 20.12.2010 TO 22.05.2011. THOUGH HYPER TENSION AND DIABETES MAY NOT BE A SERIOUS DISEASE, DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONER ADVISED THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE REST FROM 20.12.2010 TO 22.05.2011. THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AFTER EXAMININ G THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE ABSENCE FROM DUTY IS ABSOLUTELY NECE SSARY FOR RESTORATION OF THE HEALTH OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSES SEE. THIS FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FI LING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. 4 I.T.A. NO.697/MDS/2016 5. MOREOVER, THE VERY OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS UND ER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO ASSESS THE TAXABLE INCOME AND LEVY TA X THEREON AND COLLECT THE TAXES. THEREFORE, TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW IN COND ONING THE DELAY MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN ANY WA Y. MERELY BECAUSE, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT FACT AND KEEP THE TAX PAYERS MON EY. THE OBJECT, PRESCRIPTION, LIMITATION IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NO T TO DISTURB A RIGHT VESTED ON A PARTICULAR PERSON. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, TAX ON THE INCOME CAN BE LEVIED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF THE TAX CANN OT BE LEVIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT RETAIN A SINGLE PIE OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY. THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 154 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WOULD PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUS TICE AND ALSO INCREASE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE LITIGANT PUBLIC ON T HE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DELAY OF 154 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE. NOW, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS RESTO RED ON THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON 5 I.T.A. NO.697/MDS/2016 MERIT AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !'!# ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED, THE 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SP. + ).23 43&. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 5. ( )/CIT(A) 4. - 5. /CIT, 5. 36 ). /DR 6. 7# 8 /GF.