Dr. C.G. KARANJGAONKAR, MUMBAI V. ADDL. CIT. SPL. Rg. - II, MUMBAI

ITSSA 367/MUM/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9366 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MAHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: DR P DANIEL; DARISH DANIAL
• Keywords: Block assessment; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI .. , ! '#$ % % % % &'. '.(.. %) * '#$ '+ BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM ( ,- . ,/01 ) './ IT(SS)A. NO. 367/MUM/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-1989 TO 21-4-1990) DR. C.G. KARANJGAONKAR, FLAT NO. 81/82, GAURAV APTS., SAYANI ROAD, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI 400 025. ) ) ) ) / VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- SP.RG. -11, MUMBAI. $4 ! './ PAN : AACPK3878L ( 45 / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 6745 / RESPONDENT ) 45 8 9 ' / APPELLANT BY : DR. P. DANIEL & SHRI DARISH DANIAL 6745 8 9 ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MAHAPATRA ')% 8 ! / // / DATE OF HEARING : 27-06-2013 :;< 8 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-07-2013 # - / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : .. , ! '#$ THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) -XXVIII MUMBAI DTD. 21-12-2001 WHEREBY HE DI SMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE THRESHOLD TREATING THE SAME AS UNADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE RETURNED INCOME WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A 367/MUM/2005 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A D ELAY OF THREE YEARS EIGHT MONTHS AND TWENTY THREE DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLI CATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THAT I AM FILING RETURNS OF INCOME SINCE 1972. THE APPEAL AGAINST THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED SOMEWHERE O N 21 ST MARCH.2002. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. THE SAME WAS FILED ONLY 15.12.2005. HENCE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 3 YEARS 8 MONTHS AND 24 DAYS AS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON 20.01.2002. DURING THE AFORES AID PERIOD I WAS IN HOSPITAL AS WELL AS ON CONSTANT MEDICAL SUPERVISOR AS I HAVE UNDERGONE BYPASS SURGERY FOR HEART IN 2001 AS WELL AS VISION PROBLEM FOR THE EYES SINCE 1973 FOR MYOPIA WHICH WAS OPERATED IN 1975 AT BOSTON. AND CONTINUED TO BE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF EYE SURGER Y FOR A CONTRACT OPERATION AND I AM STILL SUFFERING FROM THE VISION PROBLEMS AND I COULD NOT CONCENTRATE ON MY AFFAIRS PROPERLY. BESIDES, MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT LEFT ME DUE TO FIN ANCIAL PROBLEMS, AND THERE WAS TOTAL NON-COOPERATION FROM ANY EXISTI NG CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND THEREFORE, I WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO RECONSTRUCT M FILE; AND THEREFORE, I COULD NOT FILE MY APPEAL IN TIME. I AM THE ONLY MALE MEMBER IN MY FAMILY AND I HAVE T WO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS; AND HENCE I WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO GET ANY LEGAL OR PHYSICAL ASSISTANCE FROM MY FAMILY MEMBERS. DUE TO STRINGENT FINANCIAL CONDITIONS I COULD NOT A PPROACH ANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO HELP ME OUT. FURTHER, I WA S NOT EVEN AWARE WHETHER I HAVE FILED ANY APPEALS OR NOT. THROUGH A COMMON FRIEND, I APPROACHED AN ADVOCATE, WHO HAVE HELPED ME IN FILING THE APPEAL PRESENTLY. 4. AS THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPLI CATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDA VIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMING THE RELEVANT FACTS ON OATH AS WELL AS ME DICAL CERTIFICATES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE. WE, T HEREFORE, CONDONE THE SAID DELAY AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. IT(SS)A 367/MUM/2005 3 5. AS ALREADY NOTED, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED O RDER TREATING THE SAME AS UNADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX PAYABLE ON TH E RETURNED INCOME WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BEFORE US THE DETAILS OF TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF SUPPORTING CHALLANS EVIDENCING THE SAID P AYMENTS WHICH SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 76,78,1 84/- ON ACCOUNT OF TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UPTO MARCH, 2013 WHICH IS MORE THAN THE TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE RETURNED INCOME. I N THE CASE OF BHUMIRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT (2011) 131 ITD 406 (MUM.) CI TED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IT WAS HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DEALING WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE THAT THE OBJECTIVE BEH IND SECTION 249(4) IS TO ENSURE PAYMENT OF TAX ON INCOME RETURNED BEFORE ADM ISSION OF APPEAL AND IF SUCH PAYMENT MADE AFTER FILING OF APPEAL BUT BEFORE IT IS TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL VALIDATES DEFECTIVE APPEAL, THEN THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY DOORS OF JUSTICE BE CLOSED ON A POOR ASSESSEE WHO COULD MANAGE TO MA KE PAYMENT OF TAX AT A LATER DATE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE CASE TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE ON VERIFICATION OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE RETURNED INCO ME AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JULY, 2013. . # - 8 :;< ! =#)> 5-07-2013 ; 8 SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (P.M. JAGTAP ) * '#$ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '#$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; =#) DATED 5-7-2013 IT(SS)A 367/MUM/2005 4 %.*).'./ RK , SR. PS # - 8 6*,? 0 ?< # - 8 6*,? 0 ?< # - 8 6*,? 0 ?< # - 8 6*,? 0 ?