Shri Parmar Kanubhai Somabhai, Nadiad V. The CIT-II, Baroda

MA 220/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0149 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S P BHATT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

MA NO220/AH D/2012 IN ITA NO.548/AHD/ 2012 A.YR.. 2000 -01 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AH MEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI JM & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI A.M.) M.A. NO.220/ADH/2012 (IN ITA NO. 5 48/AHD/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) PARMAR KANUBHAI SOMABHAI 60 HARI CHMNAGAR, COLLEGE ROAD, NADIAD-887001. (APPELLANT) VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NR.RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AEQPP 5074 H APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. P. BHATT. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.P. VERMA, SR.D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 15-2-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 -05-2013 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THE PRESENT M.A. ARISES OUT OF ITA. NO.548/AHD2/20 12 ORDER DATED 15-5-2012 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF BY HOLDING AS UNDE R:- MA NO220/AH D/2012 IN ITA NO.548/AHD/ 2012 A.YR.. 2000 -01 2 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,1 961.THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. AS THE AFORESAID ORDER IS NOT APPEALLABLE BEFORE US, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE. 2. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MA WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS INTERALIA CONTENDED THAT W HILE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 22-1-2009 CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE 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 CORRECT DATE OF FILING APPLICATION U/S.119 WAS 14-6-2008 AND ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY WAS OF 1 YEAR AND 3 MONTHS AND NOT 3 YEARS AS STATED IN THE ORDER. HE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED LABOURER TOTALLY IGNORANT ABO UT THE INCOME TAX LAWS AND THEREFORE THE REFUND DUE TO HIM MAY BE CONSIDER ED SYMPATHETICALLY. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ; AND THEREFORE THE M.A. BE REJECTED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER DATED 22-1-2009 PASSED U/S.1 19(2) (B),WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED FOR TH E REASON THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED ALMOST 3 YEARS FROM THE DUE DATE. THE ASS ESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS THAT THE DELAY WAS NOT OF 3 YEARS BUT OF 1 YEAR AND 3 MONTHS. IT WAS FURTHER THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE DELAY BE DI RECTED TO BE CONDONED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED LAB OURER WHO IS IGNORANT MA NO220/AH D/2012 IN ITA NO.548/AHD/ 2012 A.YR.. 2000 -01 3 ABOUT THE INCOME TAX LAWS. THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BRO UGHT ANY CONTRARY FACTS TO CONTRADICT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R 5. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED LABO URER AND IS NOT FULLY CONVERSANT WITH TAX LAWS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MAY CONSIDE R THE CASE AFRESH INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND AFT ER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE PASS THE NEC ESSARY ORDERS. 6. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ACCORDINGLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 3-05-2013 SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY S.A.PATKI. 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,AHMEDABAD.