M/s Emm Emm Associates, Chandigarh v. ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1117/CHANDI/2017 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 111721514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AACFE9037D
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1117/CHANDI/2017
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant M/s Emm Emm Associates, Chandigarh
Respondent ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 15-11-2017
First Hearing Date 15-11-2017
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 03-07-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHA CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1117/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S EMM EMM ASSOCIATES VS. ASSTT. CIT H.NO. 1526 SECTOR-18D CIRCLE 2(1) CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN: AACFE9037D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL DEPARTMENT BY : SMT CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/11/2017 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR A.M : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1 CHANDIGARH DT. 31/03/201 7. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 143/15-16 DATED 31.03.2017 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAS ERRED IN LEVYING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS. 10 000/- U/S 272A(L)(C) FOR ALLEGED DEFAULT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAS ERRED IN LEVYING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WITHOUT AFFORDING R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN HASTE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION D ELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 10 000/- UNDER SECTION 272A(L)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE APPEAL FILED IS LATE BY 1.5 MONTHS. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY APPLICA TION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH FORM NO. 35. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEA RING AND THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. RELE VANT PORTION OF APPELLANT'S APPLICATION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'THE APPELLANT ABOVE CITED FILED APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOUR ON 12.06.2015 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 12.03.2015 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 23.03.2015. THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED LATE BY ALMOST 1.5 MONTHS. THE REASON FOR SUCH DELAY WAS THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE O F THE APPELLANT I.E. SH. MUKESH MITTAL (KARTA) WAS PASSING THROUGH EXTREME ILL HEAL TH IS STILL CONTINUING AND HAS INFACT DETERIORATED MUCH THEREAFTER. DUE TO EXTREME BAD HEALTH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE YOUR HONOU R.' 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED LATE BY 1.5 MONTHS AND THE REASON GIVEN IS THAT THE KARTA OF THE APPEL LANT COMPANY WAS NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH. HOWEVER THE KARTA OF THE COMP ANY DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS ILL HEALTH. IN ABSENCE O F ANY EVIDENCE THE REASONS DO NOT EXPLAIN DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. AS PER RULES T HE APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER WHICH IS C LEARLY MENTIONED IN THE DEMAND NOTICE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEAL. THERE IS SANCTITY ATTA CHED TO THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW SINCE THE FINALITY OF A DECISION IS A VALUABLE RIGHT WHICH VESTS IN A PARTY NOT AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER AND THE EXPIRY - OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION ACTS AS AN ASSURANCE THAT THE ORDER HAS BECOME FINAL. HENCE T HE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY CANNOT BE TAKEN IN A CASUAL MANNER. HONBL E PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD IN THE CASE OF RAM MOH AN KABRA (257 ITR 773) THAT THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED ONLY FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON S SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCES. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAIN ED PROPERLY THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SO THIS DELAY IS NOT CONDONED U/S 249(3) OF THE ACT. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. AR PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT JUSTIFICATION AND EVIDENCES FOR DELAY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. 3 7. IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WE FEEL THA T ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND SUBMIT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE REASONS FOR DELAY. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BELAY THE CONFIDENCE REPOSED UPON AND WILL NOT ABUSE THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN WHILE SUBMITTING COMPLIANCE BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). 8. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REMAN DED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS AFRESH. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28/11/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR