Manisha Vilas Munot, Ahmednagar V. Tax Recovery Officer, Ahmednagar Range (IT), Ahmednagar

ITA 92/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6780 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARISES OUT OF PASSED
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 264

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO.92/PUN/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MRS. MANISHA VILAS MUNOT, 2270/72, NEWASKAR NEWAS, ADAT BAZAR, AHMEDNAGAR 414001 PAN : AAWPM0606N VS. TRO, AHMEDNAGAR RANGE (IT), AHMEDNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT(A)-2, PUNE ON 26-11-2018 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) BELATEDLY BY MORE THAN THREE YEARS. SUCH A DELAY WA S NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL WAS EVENTUALLY DISMISSED IN LIMINE . THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. APPELLANT BY SHRI SHRENIK R. GANDHI RESPONDENT BY SMT. ELSY MATHEW DATE OF HEARING 06-02-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-02-2020 ITA NO.92/PUN/2019 MRS. MANISHA VILAS MUNOT 2 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM PAGE 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN TH IS CASE ON 24-12-2010 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE O N 29- 12-2020. ON 11-04-2011, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISION PETITIO N U/S. 264 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALL ED `THE ACT) BEFORE THE LD. CIT. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE FILED REMINDER BEFORE TH E LD. CIT ON 14-07-2014, WHICH HAS FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER REMINDE R ON 22-08-2014. HEARING WAS FIXED BY THE LD. CIT WHICH TO OK PLACE ON 16-11-2015 BUT NO ORDER WAS PASSED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE REALISED TO EXPLORE THE OPTION O F FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH LED TO THE DELAY. 4. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SECTION 264( 3) OF THE ACT PROVIDES A TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING APPLICATION WITH THE CIT FOR REVISION WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IN THIS CASE WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29-12-202 0 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISION PETITION U/S.264 ON 11-04-20 11. THUS, IT IS PALPABLE THAT THE ASSESSEES REVISION PETITION WAS ITA NO.92/PUN/2019 MRS. MANISHA VILAS MUNOT 3 FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. SECTION 264(6) PROVIDES TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT AS ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH AN APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11-04-2011. EX CONSEQUENTI, THE CUT-OFF DATE FOR PASSING OF ORDER BY THE LD. CIT U/S 264 OF THE ACT WAS 31.3.2013, BEING A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS FILED. IT HAS BEEN NOTED ON PAGE 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE LD. CIT WAS STILL CONTINUING WITH THE HEARING ON 16.11.2015, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF APPLICATION AND BEYOND THE CUT-OFF DATE. THE LD. AR S TATED AT THE BAR THAT THE LD.CIT HAS STILL NOT PASSED ANY ORDER U/S .264. AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EITHER OPT FOR REVISION U/S.264 OF THE ACT OR GO IN THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCEDURE BY FILING APPEA L BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BOTH THE REMEDIES CANNOT BE SIMULTANEOUSLY AVAILED. HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESS EE CHOSE TO AVAIL THE REMEDY OF FILING REVISION PETITION U/S. 264 OF THE ACT AND LET GO THE APPELLATE RECOURSE. WHEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S.264 EXPIRED AND NO ORDER W AS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT ITA NO.92/PUN/2019 MRS. MANISHA VILAS MUNOT 4 TO GO IN FOR AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). INACTION ON THE PART OF LD. CIT IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S.264 BECAME A RAISON DETRE FOR THE LATE FILING OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SUCH A DELAY IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE LATE PRESENTATION OF THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. I, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE D ELAY IN SUCH LATE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AN D SEND THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL OF THE APPE AL ON MERITS AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (R.S.SYAL) / VICE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 07 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 ITA NO.92/PUN/2019 MRS. MANISHA VILAS MUNOT 5 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-2, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT-1, PUNE 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 06-02-2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06-02-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -- JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -- JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *