Shri Altafbhai M.Nathani, Bhavnagar V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

ITA 96/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89651 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: P B PARMAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILEND RA K UMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA. NO. 96 /AHD/20 1 2 (ASSESSME NT YEAR: 2 00 7 - 0 8 ) SHRI ALTAFBHAI M. NATHANI JAFRI FLAT NO.7, JAMANA KUND, SHISHUVIHAR, BHAVNAGAR 364001 APPELLANT VS. THE ITO , WARD - 1( 1 ), BHAVNAGAR RESPONDENT PAN: ADIPN3444Q / BY APPELLAN T : SHRI P. B. PARMAR, A.R. / BY RESPONDENT : SHRI ROOPCHAND , SR.D .R. / DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 . 0 6 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 0 6 .201 5 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J . M: THIS APPEAL H AS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSE E AGAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - X X , AHM E DABAD, DATED 15 . 0 9 . 20 1 1 FOR A.Y. 200 7 - 0 8 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I T A NO .96 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 [ SHRI ALTAFBHAI M. NATHANI VS. IT O ] PAGE 2 1. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING EX - PARTE ORDER. 2. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONDONING THE DELAY OF 23 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE CIT(A). 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAI SED BY THE APPELL ANT AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CA SE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF L D. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.8,65,000/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NO T ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELL ANT AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF L D. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.89 , 10 0/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B/C/ D OF THE ACT. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B)/(C) OF THE ACT. 2. APPEAL WAS FILED LATE BY 23 DAYS BEFORE CIT(A). THE REASON FOR SAME WAS STATED TO BE PE RSONAL BONAFIDE WORK OF ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THERE WAS SOME COMMUNICATION GAP IN THIS REGARD. ASSESSE HAS ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT GIVING THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING I T A NO .96 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 [ SHRI ALTAFBHAI M. NATHANI VS. IT O ] PAGE 3 APPEAL ON TIME. HENCE, CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL MERELY BY REJECTING CONDONATION. ACCO RDING TO US, APATHY FOR FILING APPEAL IN TIME CANNOT BE ENCOURAGED BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE BONAFIDE REASON FOR THE DELAY AS REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT. CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT SHOULD NORMALLY BE REJECTED ONLY AFTER CONFRONTING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT TO DEPONENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE . SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. SINCE, WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE ON PRELIMINARY STAGE, SO, WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT. 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 30 /06 /2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. I T A NO .96 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 [ SHRI ALTAFBHAI M. NATHANI VS. IT O ] PAGE 4 BY ORDER / , / ,