SHRI PAWAN MUNDRA, KOTA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 911/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6239 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMISHA MEGHWANI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 911/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 PAWAN MUNDRA, 524-A, TALWANDI, KOTA. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADGPM 6757 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : MS. NIMISHA MEGHWANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/01/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/05/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 201 2-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 344 DAYS . 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GOA-1 ABOVE THE HONBL E CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE REQUESTS YOUR HONOURS TO QUASH THE ORDER A ND DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,44,980/- ITA 911/JP/2018_ PAWAN MUNDRA VS. DCIT 2 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND, MODIFY AND/OR OTHERWISE SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS A S AND WHEN REQUIRED. 2. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING DECLI NE OF LD. CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 344 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DUE TO T HE REASON THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE RE SIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF CURRENT ADDRESS GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD AR HAS REFERRED TO THE RETU RN OF INCOME WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN OFFICE ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICA TION WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT A DIFF ERENT ADDRESS WHICH WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AS EIT HER THE SAID ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY A SOME LADY IN HOUSE OR BY SERVANT WHO F ORGOTTEN TO HANDOVER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ONLY WHEN THE AS SESSEE RECEIVED A NOTICE U/S 279(1) OF THE ACT HE HAS VERIFIED THROUG H HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THEN FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD AR HAS REFERRED TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL THEN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DECID ED ON MERITS INSTEAD ITA 911/JP/2018_ PAWAN MUNDRA VS. DCIT 3 OF DISMISSING THE SAME IN LIMINE. THUS, THE LD AR HA S SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE LD . CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDER ED THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FU RNISHED THE ADDRESS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AT C-150, INDRAPRASTH IND. AR EA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS 524-A, TALWANDI, KOTA. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF T HE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE ADDRESS IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME OF ITS OFFICE AND THEREFORE, DUE TO SOME CONFUSION, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT ITA 911/JP/2018_ PAWAN MUNDRA VS. DCIT 4 RECEIVE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT W HICH WAS SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS MIGHT BE RECEIVED BY SOME LADY OR SERVANT AT THE HOUSE AND WHO COULD NOT HANDO VER THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FACTUALLY CORRECT AS THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME IS C-150, INDRAPRASTH INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN I.E. OFFICIAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OFFICIAL ADDRE SS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE AD DRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS APPEARING IN THE PAN DATA OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ORDER SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE RESI DENTIAL ADDRESS WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HENC E, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT A CASE OF REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN TH E PERIOD OF LIMITATION THEN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE C ONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL A S IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 344 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FURTHER NOTE THAT BY FILING THE APPEA L BELATEDLY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE ACHIEVED ANY ULTERIOR PURPO SE AND THEREFORE, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONABLE CAUS E, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF DISMISSING ON ITA 911/JP/2018_ PAWAN MUNDRA VS. DCIT 5 TECHNICAL GROUND. HENCE, WE REMAND THE MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON MERITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH C SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 TH JANUARY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI PAWAN MUNDRA, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 911/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR