M/s Inder Pal & Sons, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 723/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80958 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 723/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S INDER PAL & SONS, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER VILLAGE ISMAILABAD, WARD 2, DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA. KURUKSHETRA. PAN: AABFI7960E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.10.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 02.01.2014 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE ON 20.12.20 12 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HIM ON 07.03.2013 WHICH WAS DELAYED BY 47 DAYS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) THAT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SERVED ON 20.12.2012 W HICH WAS APPARENTLY WRONG AND WAS PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROPOSED RECTIFICATION UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON RECEIPT OF THE LETTER, A SSESSEE FIRM 2 WRITTEN TO THE ITO INTIMATING THAT ORDER PASSED EAR LIER IS DEFECTIVE AND IT WAS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED SYMPATHETICALLY. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED APPEAL HOLDING IT TO BE TIME BARRED AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE SUFFICIENT RE ASONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS PASSED ON 30 .11.2010 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 154/155 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY, ON WHICH ORDER U/S 154 WAS PASSED ON 11.12.2012 WHICH WAS RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20.12.2012. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER MOVED FURTHER RECTIFICATION AP PLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE A.O. AND THAT DUE TO BONAF IDELY LITIGATING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPEAL COU LD NOT BE FILED ON TIME BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON IMPUGNED O RDER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SUF FICIENT REASONS FOR NOT FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEAL S), THEREFORE, APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN A BLE TO EXPLAIN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RECTIFICAT ION ORDER 3 UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 11.12.2012 ON 20 .12.2012. THOUGH, NO FURTHER APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 LI ES BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT, BUT THE ASSESSEE BONAFIDELY FILED THIS APP LICATION BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER CORRECTION IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THIS HAS RESULTED IN DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSE SSEE HAS, THEREFORE, BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT DELAY IN FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS BECAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE BONAFIDELY LITIGATING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME MAT TER IN ISSUE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE CONDON ED THE NOMINAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). RESULTANTLY, T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APP EALS) WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON ME RITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCTOBER,2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAIN I) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER,2014. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH