Rekha Gadhiya, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 710/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4293 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SASKIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , ! . , ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.710/MDS/2017 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. REKHA GADHIYA, NO.24, DR.B.N.ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI-34. [PAN: AAFPR 5122 B ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) & ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.D.ANAND, ADV. '(& ) /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SASKIKUMAR, JCIT ) /DATE OF HEARING : 15.06.2017 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.06.2017 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.710/MDS/2017 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, C HENNAI, IN ITA NO.41/12-13 DATED 20.02.2017 FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. SHRI SASKIKUMAR, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF T HE REVENUE AND SHRI D.ANAND REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.710/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT WHEN FILING T HE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THERE WAS A DELAY IN 183 DAYS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE S HUSBANDS OFFICE HAD MISPLACED THE PAPERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IMMEDI ATELY WHEN THE SAME WAS TRACED, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. IT WAS A PR AYER THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE CO NDONED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ONLY WHEN THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) WAS LEVIED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED TO FILE THE APPEAL WITH THE DELAY OF 183 DAYS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE A SSESSEE HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE A PPEAL. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE MANAGER HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THIS A FFIDAVIT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FALSITY O F THE ASSESSEES BONA FIDE CLAIM, THE SAME CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED. FURTHER , WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS PITTED AGAINST TECHNICALITIES, TECHNICAL ITIES SHOULD NORMALLY GIVE WAY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE DELAY OF 183 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) I S LIABLE TO BE CONDONED AND WE DO SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DELAY IN F ILING OF THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR RE- ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. ITA NO.710/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 15, 201 7, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: JUNE 15, 2017. TLN ) '23 43 /COPY TO: 1. & /APPELLANT 4. 5 /CIT 2. '(& /RESPONDENT 5. 3 ' /DR 3. 5 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF