Smt. Shyamala Jairaj, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 818/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8431 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 1986-1987
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R E BALASUBRAMANYAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ITA NOS.818 -8 22/BANG/2016 (ASST. YEARS 1986-87 1990-91) SMT. SHYAMALA JAIRAJ, NO.24, ANDREE ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU. . APPELLANT PAN NO. CMJPS0014F. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2) (2), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.E BALASUBRAMANYAM, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.R.V SREENIVASAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 13-3-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 -3-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS BUNCH OF 5 APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMBINED ORDER OF LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 7, BANGALORE DATED 12/1/20 16 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 TO 1990-91. 2. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : ITA NOS.818-822/B/16 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD A R OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEALS BEFORE US WERE FILED LATE BY 8 DAY S AND HE SUBMITTED THAT DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AS PER THE APPLICATION F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH AFFIDAVI T. ITA NOS.818-822/B/16 3 4. IN THE SAID APPLICATION FOR THE CONDONATION OF D ELAY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO ADVANCED AGE AND INDIFFERENT HEALTH, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO COMPREHEND THE CONTENTS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THIS SMALL DELAY OF 8 DAYS I N FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE CONDONED. CONSIDERIN G THESE FACTS, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THESE APPEALS. 5. IN ALL THE 5 YEARS, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CON DONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE DL AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY OF 278 DAYS AND IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO KNOWL EDGE OF ACCOUNTING ASPECTS AND TAX LAWS AND THEREFORE, SHE WAS NOT ADV ISED THAT THERE ARE REMEDIAL OPTION OF FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONDON ED THE DELAY AND SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE APPEALS AND DECIDED THE AP PEALS ON MERIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E ONLY REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS TO CONDONE THE DELA Y IN FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE CIT (A) AND THEN THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD CIT(A) FOR GIVING A DECISION ON MERIT. 6. THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED, SOME COST SHOUL D BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DEL AY OF 278 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). AS PER THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE CAN FILE APPEAL BE FORE THE LD CIT(A). ITA NOS.818-822/B/16 4 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I FEEL IT PROPER THAT T HE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.10,000/- BEING RS.2,000/- FOR EACH YEAR AND MATTER SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE LD CI T(A) ON MERIT. HENCE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR GIVING DECISION ON MERIT AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY OF 278 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM AFTER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES THE EVIDENCE OF THIS PAYMENT OF COST OF R S.10,000/-. LD CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THESE FIVE APPEALS AFRESH AFTE R PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/- (AK GAR ODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEM BER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 17/03/2017 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, IT AT, BANGALORE.