ABACUS INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7400/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71889 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.7400/M/2011 (AY: 2006 - 2007) RAMESH B BUSWAL, PLOT NO.3, KHERWADI, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. / VS. ITO - 19(3)(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LAL BAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 012. ./ PAN : AAAPB 9537 H ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANVENDRA GOYAL / DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .12.2013 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3.11.2011 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 30, MUMBAI DATED 26.8.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS AND MENTIONED THAT THE CIT (A) FAILED TO GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BE BEING HEARD IN ALL THE MATTERS THEREBY ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL MAY BE RE MANDED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION TO THE FILES OF THE CIT (A). IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY HIS PRAYER BY BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE CIT (A) FAILED TO CONDONE THE DELAY MER ELY BY STATING THAT THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR SUCH CONDONATION. HE ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.4.2012, WHICH IS FILED BEFORE US AND MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS STUDIED ONLY 3 RD STANDARD AND THEREFORE HE IS UNAWARE OF THE INTRICACIES OF LAW. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF PAPER BOOK, PAGE NO.46 IN PARTICULAR, AND MENTIONED 2 THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM WERE NOT EXPRESSLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. ON THE OTHER H AND, LD DR HAS NOT OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST OF THE LD COUNSEL BY PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC REASONS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE CIT (A). ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FORMAL REQUEST FOR CONDONTION OF DELAY BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) ALSO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY LETTER TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT (A) HIMSELF WITHOUT TAKING UP THIS ISSUE FORMALLY WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN OU R OPINION, THIS IS NOT A PROPER PROCEDURE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CIT (A) WHEN HE IS DERIVING ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . WE ALSO FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS DATED 25.8.2011, WHICH W ERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A ) ON 26.8.2011 , WHICH IS THE COMMON DATE ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED AND THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF SUCH SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMAND THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS BEFORE US TO THE FILES OF THE CIT (A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 T H DECEMBER, 2013. S D / - S D / - (VIVEK VARMA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 1 0 .12.2013 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI