Pradip R.Subramniam, Gandhinagar V. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-14, Ahmedabad

ITA 831/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8151 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ H LEKINWALA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ./ I.T.A. NO.831/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) PRADIP R. SUBRAMNIAM C/O. C.A. C.S. MANOJ H. LEKINWALA, PLOT NO. 289, SECTOR NO. 29, GANDHINAGAR : 382029 / VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-14, AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFLPS8878Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ H. LEKINWALA, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 05/06/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/06/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-5, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 29.01.2016 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.08.2014 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S .143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; (THE ACT) CONCERNING ASSESSME NT YEAR 2013-14. ITA NO. 831/AHD/16 [PRADIP R. SUBRAMANIUM VS. DCIT] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 - 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF 4 MONTH S DELAY IN FILLING APPEAL AND NOT GIVEN ANY ADJUDICATION ON ME RITS OF THE CASE. 3. ON OBJECTIVE READING OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THE REFUSAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING, MERITS RECO NSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT BY DELAY OF ABOUT 4 MONTHS ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), NO GRAVE PREJUDI CE PER SE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. THE ACTION OF BELATED FILIN G OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS, IN FACT, DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OTHERWISE. THE MERIT OF THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE CIT(A) AND APPEAL HAS BEEN REJECTED AT THE THRESHOL D OWING TO BELATED FILING BEYOND LIMITATION PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION THAT DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO CORRECTI ON AND FOLLOW UP AT THE END OF CPC CENTRE. THE EXPLANATION APPEARS PLAU SIBLE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) STANDS CONDONED. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS, THUS, SET AS IDE AND REMITTED BACK TO CIT(A) FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 07/06/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07/06/20 18 ITA NO. 831/AHD/16 [PRADIP R. SUBRAMANIUM VS. DCIT] A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 - /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56)