Shah Ravindra Derogarh, Nadiad V. The CIT- II, Baroda

MA 141/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0716 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: S P BHATT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

MA NO 141/A/2013 (IN ITA NO. 550/A/2012 . A.Y. 2001-02 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, A HMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVED I, A.M.) M. A. NO. 141/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 550 /AHD/2012) (ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2001-02) SHAH RAVINDRA DEROGARH, C/0: S.P. BHATT, ADVOCATE, 8- TAGORE PARK-I, PIJ ROAD, NADIAD-387002. (APPELLANT) VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX-II, AAYAKAR BHUVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA-390 007. (RESPONDENT) PAN: ADDPP2439C APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.P. BHATT A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 16-08-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 -09-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. THE PRESENT M.A. ARISES OUT OF ITA. NO.550/AHD2 /2012 ORDER DATED 15-5-2012 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF C. I.T.-II, BARODA PASSED UNDER SEC. 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961.THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. AS THE AFORESAID ORDER IS N OT APPEALLABLE BEFORE US, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE. MA NO 141/A/2013 (IN ITA NO. 550/A/2012 . A.Y. 2001-02 2 1. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED THE PRESENT MA WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS INTERALIA CONTENDED THAT WHILE PAS SING THE ORDER DATED 05-01-2009 CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E REASON THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 30-6-2003 I.E. ALMOST 3 YEARS FROM THE DUE DATE. THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE DELAY WAS OF 8 MONTHS & 17 DAYS AND NOT 3 YEARS AS STATED IN THE ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED LA BOURER TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT THE INCOME TAX LAWS AND THEREFORE THE REFUND DUE TO HIM MAY BE CONSIDERED SYMPATHETICALLY. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL; AND THERE FORE THE M.A. BE REJECTED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER DATED 05-1-2009 PASSED U/S.119(2) (B),WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE RETUR N WAS FILED ALMOST 3 YEARS FROM THE DUE DATE. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS THAT THE DELAY WAS NOT OF 3 YEARS BUT OF 8 MONTHS & 17 DAYS. IT WAS FURTHER THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE DELAY BE DIRECTED TO BE CONDONED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED LABOURER WHO IS IGNORANT ABOUT THE INCOME TAX LAWS. THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY FACTS TO CONTRADICT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED LABOURER AND IS NOT FULLY CONVERSANT WITH TAX LAWS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS A ND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MAY CONSIDER THE CASE AF RESH INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE MA NO 141/A/2013 (IN ITA NO. 550/A/2012 . A.Y. 2001-02 3 PASS THE NECESSARY ORDERS. IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PATEL MAHESHBHAI DAHYABHAI HAD GIVEN SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AND WRIT PETITION FILE D BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THAT ORDER OF TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HON. JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8003 OF 2013 DATED 2. 05.2013. 5. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 - 09 - 2013. SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AH MEDABAD