Sri.G.Manohar, Chitradurga V. Income-Tax Officer, Chitradurga

ITA 955/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7702 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI JT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.955/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI G. MANOHAR, PROP. RAJYALAKSHMI TRADERS, RMC YARD, CHITRADURGA. PAN: ALEPM 6747M VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, CHITRADURGA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANDEEP, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JT.CIT(DR)(ITAT) DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.08.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE APPELLANT, IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONDONING THE DELA Y EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE F OR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ITA NO.955/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPE AL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE AGREED BY THE AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CO NFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS WHICH PROVES THE GENUINENESS AND CRED ITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.5,77,274/- EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCE D THE CONFIRMATION AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. ADDITIONAL GROUND 5. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MISUNDERSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE HAS ACCEPTED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT ADDIT IONS MADE IN ASSESSMENT. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER, THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR OTHERWISE MODIFY ANYONE OR AL L THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APP EAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE A PPEAL LATE BY 50 DAYS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE DELAY IN FILING OF AP PEAL WAS EXPLAINED THROUGH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WITH T HE REQUEST TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING, BUT THE CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSES SEE. WHILE DOING SO, HE HAS GIVEN FINDING ON MERITS ALSO, WITHOUT AFFORD ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF ITA NO.955/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ADDITIONS WERE MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT LOOKING TO THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) M AY BE CONDONED AND THE CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSU ES ON MERIT IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER AF FORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES, I FIND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY OF 50 DA YS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. I HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS, WITHOUT LOOKING TO THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE WITH RESPECT TO CREDITS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. I HAVE ALSO CARE FULLY EXAMINED THE EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CI T(APPEALS) AND I FIND THAT THERE IS VALID REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL , THEREFORE THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 5. THOUGH THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSU E ON MERITS, BUT HE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF EV IDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CI T(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY ITA NO.955/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF EVID ENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 4 TH AUGUST, 2017. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.