Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 983/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 98321714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BALASUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 983/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. THIRUVENGADAM INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. HANSA VISION INDIA PVT. LTD.), SOUTH INDIAN FILM CHAMBER BUILDING, NO.605-606, ANNA SALAI, II FLOOR, THOUSAND LIGHTS, CHENNAI 600 006. PAN AABCT3770E APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, CIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 14.07.2015 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.07.2015 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 5.3.2 015. - - ITA 983/ 15 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE WITHOUT CONDONING T HE DELAY OF 157 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME- TAX(APPEALS). 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 157 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION MENTIONING THE REASONS FOR DELAY. THE ASS ESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ORDER ON 28.12.2011 AND THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF APPEAL IS 27.1.2012. THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL MENTIONED IN THE PETITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT THAT THERE W ERE CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORDS AND HENCE FILED RECTIFICATION A PPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT VIDE LETTERS DATED 27.1.2012 AND 2.2.201 2 TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THE SAID APPLICATI ON WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER U/S.154 DAT ED 23.2.2012 BY PARTLY RECTIFYING AND MODIFYING SOME ISSUES AND CON FIRMING THE OTHER FINDINGS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED THAT T HE ORDER U/S.143(3) WAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER U/S.154, A SINGLE APPEAL WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO REMEDY THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE , IT FILED AN APPEAL ON 28.2.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.154 DATED 23.2.2 012. LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE AN INDEPENDENT APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ALSO, BY ABUNDANT CAUTI ON AND THE APPEAL FILED ON 5.7.2012 ALONG WITH A CONDONATION PETITION . IN THE MEANTIME, - - ITA 983/ 15 3 THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 17.8.2012, STATIN G THAT SINCE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 5.7.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.154 IS WITHDRAWN. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE OR DER U/S.154 WAS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E- TAX(APPEALS)-III VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.886/11-12/A.I II DATED 22.8.2012. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOT CON SIDERED THE ABOVE DELAY AND OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND THAT TOO, WITHOUT ADEQUATE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT DISPUTED. DURING THE PERIOD OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING ALTE RNATIVE REMEDY BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OP INION, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROSECUTING OTHER REMEDY BEFORE T HE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEAL S), AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3), BY WAY OF RECTI FICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT, THE TIME CONSUMED FOR THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE DETERMINING, WHE THER THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT PRESENTI NG THE APPEAL IN TIME. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN PURSUING THE - - ITA 983/ 15 4 ISSUE IN DISPUTE BY WAY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.154 OF T HE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASO N IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY, BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(APPEALS). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR THE DELAY PROPERLY AND THE DELAY IS TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDIN GLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND DIRECT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERIT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 17 TH OF JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ . . $ . %& ) ( ' ( ) * ) N.R.S.GANESAN) +,-./0-1223-045 6 78 /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! 789::2;.<-.<=>?@>0 '6 /CHENNAI, A7 /DATED, THE 17 TH JULY, 2015. MPO* 7& BCDC /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. E5 /CIT(A) 4. E /CIT 5. CF% G /DR 6. %HI /GF.