BIRANCHI LABA SAHU, MUMBAI V. I.T.O. WD.4(4), THANE

ITA 6971/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93238 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDIP SINGH SR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVIN JADHAV
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6971/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 SHRI BIRANCHI LABA SAHU, FLAT NO.604, BUILDING NO.18, AVISHKAR NEELKANTH CO-OP HSG. SOC, OPP ICICI BANK, NEHRU NAGAR, KURLA (E), MUMBAI-400024 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD4(1), 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK, Z CROSS ROAD, 16 TH ROAD, WAGLE ESTATE, THANE-401208 ( !' # /ASSESSEE) ( $ / REVENUE) P.A. NO .BCQPS6409G !' # / ASSESSEE BY SHRI PRAVIN JADHAV $ / REVENUE BY SHRI CHANDIP SINGH SR. AR- DR % $& ' # ( / DATE OF HEARING 28/07/2015 ' # ( / DATE OF ORDER: 29/07/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 13/07/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI PRAVIN JADHAV IS NOT CONDONING THE D ELAY OF 126 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF ITA NO.6971/MUM/2012 BIRANCHI LABA SAHU 2 INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THUS CONSEQUENT ADDITION REMAINED AS IT IS. THE LD. DR, SHRI CHANDIP SINGH, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACT S, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANC E WITH RESPECT TO LOAN FROM MRS. MARY COLACO ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH LOANS WERE NOT GENUINE AND ALSO LOAN FROM MR. LABA KUMAR SAHU ON IDENTICAL REASONING. THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT AFFIDAVITS TO THIS EFFECT WERE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO. HO WEVER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NO T CONDONE THE DELAY OF 126 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO F ILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HOWEVER, HE D ID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THIS TR IBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASON OF DELAY. WE ARE SATISFIED WI TH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THA T NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. AT THE SAME TIM E, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO EXPECTED TO ADDUCE GOOD AND SUFFIC IENT REASON FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY. WHERE THE LEGISLAT URE HAS SPELT OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND ALSO PROVIDED POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY, THEREFORE, SUCH DELAY MAY BE CON DONED IF SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS ARE ADDUCED, THUS, FOLL OWING THE ITA NO.6971/MUM/2012 BIRANCHI LABA SAHU 3 DECISIONS AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN IN THE C ASES OF CIT VS RAM MOHAN KABRA (257 ITR 773) (P & H), BRAJABAND HU NANDA VS CIT 44 ITR 668 (ORISSA)(FB), COLLECTOR LAN D ACQUISITION VS MST. KATJI 167 ITR 471 (SC), ORIENTA L INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. VS CIT 32 ITR 664 (SC) AND RAMACHANDRAN VS STATE OF KERALA (1998) AIR SC 2276) , WE CONDONE THE DELAY. EVEN OTHERWISE, KEEPING IN VIEW , THE DELAY INVOLVED, PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT N O PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, WE REMAND THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVID ENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDES, AT TH E CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 28/07/2015 . SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ # / JUDICIAL MEMBER % & MUMBAI; ) DATED : 29/07/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 % 1# ( + ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 % 1# / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 3$4 .# , 0 +( 5 , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO.6971/MUM/2012 BIRANCHI LABA SAHU 4 6. ! 7& / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+# .# //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % & / ITAT, MUMBAI