Sri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 953/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7561 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R N PARBAT
• Assessee Lawyers: V CHANDRASHEKHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80C; 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.953/BANG/2017 (ASST. YEAR 2010-1 1) SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY, FLAT NO.411, INDUS INNOVA APARTMENTS, BEHIND RING ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU. . APPELLANT PAN AAGPY3889B. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BENGALURU. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V CH ANDRASHEKHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.N PA RBAT, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 11-9-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-9-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -5, BE NGALURU DATED 31/1/2017 FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO. 953/B/17 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE DISPO SAL OF THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, EMPLOYED WITH M/S LOGICA PVT. LT D., AS AN IT CONSULTANT, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YE AR 2010-11 ON 26/4/2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.18,67,220/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) AND THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY . THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATE D 15/3/2013, WHEREIN THE ASSESSES INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.5 1,73,610/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.18,67,220/- IN VI EW OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES:- (I) DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C - RS.1,00,000/- (II) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN REPAYMENT U/S 24(6) - RS.1,50,000/- (III) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER 26AS - RS.11,98,062/ - (IV) UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS - RS.14,40,13 0/- (V) UNEXPLAINED CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS - RS.4,1 8,200/- 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 15/3 /2013 FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE WHICH WAS BELATEDLY FILED BY 323 DAYS. T HE ASSESSEE FILED A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF THE AFORE SAID DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL SUBMITTING, INTER ALIA, THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ITA NO. 953/B/17 3 SUBSEQUENT STEPS TO BE TAKEN ON COMPLETION OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE SAID DELAY WAS FOR REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. THE LD CIT(A) REJECTED THE ASSESSES COND ONATION APPLICATION; REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIM INE, WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER (AO) IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-5, BANGALOR E DATED 31/1/2017 FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11,THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED THIS APPEAL, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT I N SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LA W, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES TO BE ASSESSED TO AN INCOME OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME OF RS. 18,67,220/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DELAY OF 323 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE DELAY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDONED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . ITA NO. 953/B/17 4 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL OF THE ON THE GROUND OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED T HE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN AD DING A SUM OF RS,11,98,062/- AS DIFFERENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER 26AS AND RETURNED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE LEANED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DE NYING DEDUCTION OF RS.1,50,000/- TOWARDS HOUSING LOAN AND RS.1,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT, IN ITA NO. 953/B/17 5 COMPUTING THE NET TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MA KING ADDITION OF RS.14,40,130/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPO SIT AND RS.4,18,200/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT CARD PAYMEN T ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN NELLORE BRANCH, AND THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN INFORMED TO THE CIT(A), WHO CHOSE NOT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE ISSUES AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY ON THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS FILED SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF EVERY ASPECT OF THE APPEAL AND SUBSTANTIATED THE SAME BY WAY OF DOCUMENTS AND THE CITA(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE PETITION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND ADJUDICATE D ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. 12. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT T HE INTEREST CALCULATION U/S. 234B AND 234C IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FURTHER, THE PERIOD, RAT E, ITA NO. 953/B/17 6 QUANTUM AND METHOD OF CALCULATION ADOPTED ON WHICH INTEREST IS LEVIED ARE ALL NOT DISCERNABLE AND ARE WRONG ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 13. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, SUBST ITUTE AND DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL URGE D ABOVE. 14. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE URGED DUR ING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUS TICE. 4.1 BEFORE US, THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH IN THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO IN T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ARE ALL EXPLAINABLE, VERIFIABLE AND ALLO WABLE; BE IT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN U/S 24(6) OF THE ACT; THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80C OF THE ACT, CREDIT CA RD PAYMENTS, CASH DEPOSITS AND DIFFERENCE IN 26AS OF RECEIPTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SETTLED POSITION THAT LEGITIMATE TAXES ALONE HAVE T O BE COLLECTED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED THE APPEAL LATE INTENTIONALLY OR WILLFULLY AS THAT WOULD JEOPARDIZE HIS OWN CASE, WHICH NO NORMAL PERSON WOULD DO. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY UNAWARE WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT STEP TO BE TAKEN AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ADVERSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY MALAFIDE INTENTIO N ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN TIME. IT IS PRAYED THAT IN THE ITA NO. 953/B/17 7 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY OF 323 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE L D CIT(A) BE CONDONED AND THE LD CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS. IN THIS REGARD, RELIA NCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MST KATIJI & OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471 WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLES FO R DEALING WITH MATTERS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN . 4.2 THE LD DR FOR REVENUE CONTENDS THAT THE EXPLANA TION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONDONATION AND THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DECLINED TO CONDONE THE D ELAY OF 323 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION OF THE LD CTI(A) IN IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIJESH KUAMR & O THERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS IN SLP NO:6609 TO 6613 OF 2014 DATED 24/3/2014 AND THE DECISION OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF T HE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. TRACTORS & FA RM EQUIPMENTS LTD., (104 ITD 149). 4.3 IN REJOINDER, THE LD AR STATED THAT THE JUDICIA L PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE LD DR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL HAS TO BE CONSIDE RED SEPARATELY, HAVING REGARD TO THE UNIQUE FACTS OF EACH CASE. TH E LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE LD DR WOULD ITA NO. 953/B/17 8 HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE ON HAND. RATHER, T HE RATIO AND PRINCIPLES AS LAID OUT BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI AND OTH ERS (1987) (167 ITR 471) (SC) OUGHT TO BE APPLIED TO DECIDE THE MAT TER IN THE CASE ON HAND. 4.4.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WH ILE THE REASONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY OF 323 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) FIND MENTION IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATIONS FO R THE SAID DELAY WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE FACTS AS PER THE EXPLANAT IONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL MAINLY DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY. IT APPEARS TO US, FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION S IN RESPECT OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SUBSEQUENT LEGAL STEPS TO BE TAKEN AF TER RECEIPT OF THE ADVERSE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT F OR ASST. YEAR 2010- 11. IT DOES NOT STAND TO REASON THAT ANY MAN WOULD INTENTIONALLY JEOPARDIZE HIS OWN CASE BY DELIBERATELY FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY; MORE SO WHEN HIS INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.51,73, 610/-, ALMOST 3 TIMES MORE THAN HIS RETURNED INCOME OF RS.18,67,220 /-, RESULTING IN TAX DEMAND OF RS.14,81,440/- BEING RAISED. FURTHER , AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSE E, THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO I.E DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST ON REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN; DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUC TION U/S 80C OF ITA NO. 953/B/17 9 THE ACT, CREDIT CARD PAYMENT, CASH DEPOSITS AND DIF FERENT IN 26AS AS REGARDS TO GROSS RECEIPTS ARE BASICALLY FACTUAL IN NATURE AND CAN BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT CLEARLY EVIDENCES THAT THE ISSUES ON WHICH ADDITION S/DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE, HAVE NEITHER BEEN DISCUSSED NOR HAS ANY REASONED FINDING/SPEAKING ORDER BEEN RENDERED BY THE AO ON A NY ISSUE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. ON APPEAL ALSO, THE LD CIT(A) WITHOUT GOING INTO AND EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE VARIOUS GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS H AS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE BY DECLINING TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 4.4.2 THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MST. K ATIJI AND OTHERS (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLES FOR EXA MINING PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEALS, I.E, TH AT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICES SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. IT I S SETTLED POSITION THAT WHILE CONFIRMING SUFFICIENT CAUSE THE COURT SHOULD TAKE A LIBERAL VIEW IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE , ESPECIALLY WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT THE PARTIES HAVE NOT ACTED WITH MALAFIDE INTENTIONS AND THE REASONS/EXPLANATIONS PUT FORTH ARE SATISFACTORY. I N THE CASE ON HAND, THE FACTUAL EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE A S THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVER TED BY REVENUE, THOUGH THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT FIND THAT SAME SUFFICI ENT ENOUGH TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IN OUR VIEW, AFTER A CAREFUL PE RUSAL OF THE EXPLANATIONS PUT FORTH FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES DEFAULT IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR MALAF IDE, AS BY FILING THE ITA NO. 953/B/17 10 APPEAL BELATEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT STAND TO BENE FIT. IN THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSES EXPLANATION PUT FORTH ESTABLISH SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 323 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MST. KATIJI & OTH ERS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY AND CONDONE THE DELAY OF 323 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2010- 11 BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). 4.4.3 WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIJESH KUMAR & OTHERS VS . STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS IN SLP NO.6609 TO 6613 OF 2014 DAT ED 24/3/2014, RELIED UPON BY THE LD DR FOR REVENUE. IN THIS CITE D CASE THERE WAS AN INORDINATE DELAY OF APPROX. 10 YEARS 2 MONTHS AND 2 9 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE FACTS WERE THAT THE PETITIONERS H AD ORIGINALLY NOT PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION, WHEREAS OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS DID SO. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE HONBLE COURT AWARDED ENHANCED COMPENSATI ON AND OTHER STATUTORY BENEFITS TO THOSE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIE S WHO HAD FILED THE APPEALS IN TIME, THAT THE PETITIONERS PREFERRED APP EALS FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AFTER A LAPSE OF ABOUT 10 YEARS 2 MONT HS AND 29 DAYS, WHICH THE HONBLE COURT REFUSED TO CONDONE ON GROUN DS OF INORDINATE DELAY. IN OUR HUMBLE VIEW, NEITHER THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES NOR THE PERIOD OF DELAY IN THE CITED CASE (SUPRA) ARE A PPLICABLE TO FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. ITA NO. 953/B/17 11 4.4.4 THE OTHER DECISION CITED BY THE LD DR FOR REV ENUE IS OF THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. TRACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD., (104 ITD 149). IN THIS CITED CASE (SUPRA), THE REASON PUT FORTH BY THE DIR ECTOR OF THE COMPANY FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS MISPLACED WITH SOME OTHER PAPERS AND IT IS ONLY ON SORTING OUT OF UNWANTED PAPERS THAT HE FOUND THAT N O STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN TO FILE THE APPEAL. IN THAT CASE, REVENUE ES TABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR WHO FILED THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A UTHORIZED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TO ATTEND/REPRESENT TAX MATTERS O F THE COMPANY. IN THAT FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL CAM E TO THE VIEW THAT THE REASONS PUT FORTH FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEAL WERE NOT BONAFIDE AND ALSO THE SAID DELAY WAS DUE TO NEG LIGENCE AND INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DELIBERATE OR MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) BELATEDLY ; MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEE, A SALARIED EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN FASTENED WIT H A HUGE TAX LIABILITY OF RS.14,81,440/- BY A CRYPTIC, NON SPEAK ING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 15/3/2013 FO R ASST. YEAR 2010- 11 IN WHICH THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OR FINDING RENDE RED BY THE AO ON ANY OF THE ISSUES ON WHICH ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF I TAT, CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD ., (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. ITA NO. 953/B/17 12 4.4.5 AS MENTIONED AND DISCUSSED AT PARA 4.4.2 (SU PRA), THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MST. KATIJI & OTH ERS (SUPRA), HAS EXPLAINED AND LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLES TO BE KEPT I N MIND WHILE CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE HONBLE COURT E XPLAINED THAT EVERY DAYS DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED DOES NOT MEAN TH AT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APP LIED IN A RATIONAL, COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MATTER. KEEPING IN MIND THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT; THE FACT THAT A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING THE A PPEAL LATE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY AND DIRE CTING THAT THE APPEAL BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS WOULD CAUSE NO LOSS TO REV ENUE AS LEGITIMATE TAXES PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ALO NE WILL BE COLLECTED, WE FIND THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY OF 323 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND DO SO. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR CONSIDE RATION AND ADJUDICATION ON MERITS OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE LD CIT(A) WILL AFFORD THE ASSE SSEE AND THE AO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON ALL ISSUES R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM BEFORE ADJUDICATI NG THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. 5. IN VIEW OF OUR ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND RESTORING THE ASSESSES APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD CIT(A) FOR ITA NO. 953/B/17 13 ADJUDICATION ON MERITS, WE DECLINE TO ADJUDICATE ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASESSEE ON VARIOUS ISSUES ON MERITS AS THE S AME HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATE D ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (VIJAYPAL RAO) (JASO N P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER BANGALORE DATED : 27/9/2017 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BAN GALORE.