Tariq Ahmad, Lucknow V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 741/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4644 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.741 TO 745/LKW/2015 A.YRS.:2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 & 2011-1 2 A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW. VS SHRI TARIQ AHMAD 633/204, GULZAR COLONY, CHINHAT, LUCKNOW. PAN:AGJPA4993K (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI YOGESH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 14 /03/2016 DATE OF HEARING 17 /03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THESE FIVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST FIVE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-III, LUCKNOW ALL DATED 06/08/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 & 2011-12. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED LATE BY 60 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CONDONATION A PPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ORDER OF C IT(A) AT THE ADDRESS OF HIS COUSIN, WHICH WAS GIVEN IN FORM-35 AND THIS ADDRESS IS THE LOCAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS RESIDING IN SULTANPUR. IT IS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMES TO LUCKNOW ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS VE RY FREQUENTLY BUT DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 2015 TO NOVEMBER 2015, HE W AS SUFFERING FROM INFECTION OF LIVER AND WAS NOT COMING TO LUCKNOW AN D UNDER THESE FACTS, THERE 2 WAS DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS AND THEREFORE, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THA T THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 3. REGARDING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE US THAT PROPER COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING GOOD HEALTH IN THIS PERIOD. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 TO 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IN THE SAME, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS CASH DEPOSIT AND THEREAFTER, THE AMOUNT WAS USED FOR ISSUING CHEQUES TO VARIOUS PART IES BUT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED BACK THE CASH FROM SUCH PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS A VERY GOOD CASE TO EXP LAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTORING THE MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN HIS C ASE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS FACT THAT AS PER LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE, PROPER REPRESENTATION COULD NOT BE MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING GOO D HEALTH IN THIS PERIOD. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AND THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALL THESE FIVE YEARS AND RESTORE THE ENTI RE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER ALLO WING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFOR E ASSESSING OFFICER BY BRINGING NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF HIS 3 CONTENTION. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDING, WE DO NO T MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:17/03/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. R EGISTRAR