Sri. N. Sudeshkumar, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 873/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0273 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA.873/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'B', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.873/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI. N. SUDESH KUMAR, NO.38/2, 2 ND CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU 560 021 .. APPELLANT PAN : ARVPS1637B V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SURESH MUTHUKRISHNAN, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT HEARD ON : 23.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 15.07.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IT HAS ALTOGETHER RAISED FIVE GROUNDS. GRIEVANCE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND.2 IS REP RODUCED HEREUNDER : 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSIN G TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT NO VALID OR AC CEPTABLE REASON FOR ITA.873/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. 02. CIT (A) HAD NOT CONDONED THE DELAY OF 112 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. AS PER THE CIT (A) THERE WAS NO VALID OR ACCEPTABLE REASON FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 03. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUA L AND WAS DEPENDENT ON HIS ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS HANDLING THE TAX AFFAIRS. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD INT ERACTED HAD NOT INFORMED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHAT WAS TO BE DONE ON THE ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE AO. AS PER THE LD. AR ASSESSEE HAD LATER IN CIDENTALLY MET ANOTHER CA AND IT WAS AT THIS STAGE HE BECAME AWARE THAT AN APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED. BY THAT TIME, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 112 DAYS AND THE CIT (A) UNJUSTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY. 04. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT ( A). 05. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED BEFORE THE CIT (A) FOR CONDONIN G THE APPEAL IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : ITA.873/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 06. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT WHEN TECHNICAL CONSIDERATI ON AND MERIT ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, LATTER SHOULD HAVE A UPPER HAND . ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW WHA T WAS STATED BY HIM BEFORE THE CIT (A) WAS INCORRECT. ASSESSEE HAD STA TED THAT THE DELAY WAS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT CIT ( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ITA.873/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. I THEREFORE DIRECT CONDON ATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) AND REMIT IT BACK TO HIS FILE FOR DISPOSAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 07. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR