Smt.Madhavi Gopinath , Bangalore v. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 141/BANG/2019 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14121114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN ANPPM3538F
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 141/BANG/2019
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Smt.Madhavi Gopinath , Bangalore
Respondent Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(4), Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 08-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 26-03-2019
First Hearing Date 29-08-2019
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 24-01-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.141/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. MADHAVI GOPINATH NO.620 2 ND PHASE 7 TH BLOCK HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS BSK III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. PAN ANPPM 3538 F VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(4) BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHYAM H.C C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GANESH R GHALE ADVOCATE STANDING COUNSEL TO D EPT. DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.11.2019 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 7/12/2018 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-9 BENGALURU AN D IT RELATES TO ASST. YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ALSO IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LD CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. FURTHER HE SUBM ITTED THAT THERE ITA NO.141 /BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 6 WAS DELAY OF 121 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE L D CIT(A) AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO REFUSED TO CONDO NE THE DELAY. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT HE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD CIT( A) ON 20/10/2017 AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 29/11/2018. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON NEXT DAY ON 30/11/2018 AND THE SAM E HAS ESCAPED HIS ATTENTION. HENCE HE DID NOT APPEAR BEF ORE LD CIT(A). HOWEVER THE LD CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX- PARTE. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFUSED TO CONDONE T HE DELAY. 4. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY OF 12 1 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) HAS OCCURRED FOR THE REASON THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO ASSISTED HER IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO DID NOT BRING THE ASST. O RDER TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING REASONS FOR THE DELAY. ACCORD INGLY HE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) M AY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. I HEARD LD DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE I EXTRACT BELOW THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. I SMT.MADHAVI GOPINATH W/O GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.71 K R ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560037 SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE ON OATH AS FOLLOWS. ITA NO.141 /BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 6 1. THAT I AM AN ASSESSEE HOLDING PAN NO.ANPPM3538F IN RESPECT TO WHICH AN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CARRIED OUT BY ITO WARD 4(1)(4). 2. THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR AY 2012-13 ONE OF THE FINANCE MANAGER BY NAME MR.K.R.PRAKASH ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BY REPRESENTING ON BEHALF OF ME. 3. THAT BELIEVING THAT THE SAID REPRESENTATIVE HAD SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE I RELIED UPON HIS REPRESENTAT ION. HOWEVER LATER ON I WAS INFORMED BY THE SAID REPRESENTATIVE THAT I HAD TO PAY TAX OF RS. 10 02 7 97/- FOR WHICH I HAVE ALSO PAID THE SAME WITHOUT GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT AFTER PAYMENT OF TAX THE SAID REPRESENTATI VE RESIGNED FROM OUR COMPANY AFTER WHICH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO MY KNOWLEDG E ON 10.08.2015. THERE AFTER THE SAID REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMMUNICATION AND I CONTACTED MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REGARDING THE SAME FOR WHICH I WAS SUGGESTED TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT APPEALS. FURTHER I ENTRUSTED TO MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THE WORK ON PREFERRING AN APPEAL IN RESP ECT OF WHICH APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE CIT APPEALS ON 21.08.2015. 5. THAT THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION FOR AN CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 121 DAYS WITH THE REASON THAT I DINT KNOW HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABO UT THE SAID ORDER NOR I WAS INFORMED BY THE SAID REPRESENTATIVE EXCEPT THE REQUIREMENT TO PAY TAX. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) INSISTED UPON FI LING AN AFFIDAVIT BY THE SAID REPRESENTATIVE IN SPITE OF INFORMING THAT HE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMMUNICATIO N DESPITE BEST EFFORT. 7. THAT MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAD REQUESTED FOR TIME TO TRACE THE EARLIER REPRESENTATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO WHICH LEARNED CIT APPEALS HAS PASSED IN IMPUGNED ITA NO.141 /BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 6 ORDER WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY REPRESENT MY CASE. THAT I HAVE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BL E TRIBUNAL IN ITA.NO.141/BANG/2019 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). I DECLARE THAT WHATEVER HAS BEEN STATED AND DECLARE D BY ME HEREIN ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND I HAVE STATED THE SAME CONSCIOUSLY AND HONESTLY. 6. ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT I NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS DEPENDENT UPON HER REPRESENTATIVE NAMED K.R PRAKASH FOR REPRESENTING THE INCOME-TAX MATTERS BEFORE THE AO. THE ASST. ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ALSO MENTIONS THE NAME OF K.R PRAK ASH AS THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE HIM. SINCE THE ABOVE SA ID K.R PRAKASH WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMMUNICATION IT IS STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ASST. ORDER. THEREAFTER THE A SSESSEE HAS APPROACHED A C.A WHO ADVISED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WITH A DELAY OF 121 DAYS. IN MY VIEW THE R EASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE D ELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). 7. I NOTICED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE I AM O F THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNI TY TO PRESENT HER CASE BEFORE LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY I SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATING ITA NO.141 /BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 6 THEM AFRESH ON MERITS. I ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD CIT(A) FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEA L. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2019. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT (S) / CROSS OBJECTOR(S) 2. RESPONDENT(S) 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE