Smt. R. Bhavana, Mysore v. ACIT, Mysore

ITA 145/BANG/2011 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14521114 RSA 2011
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 145/BANG/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Smt. R. Bhavana, Mysore
Respondent ACIT, Mysore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 14-07-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 15-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER (SMC) I.T.A. NO.145(BANG.)/2011 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99) SMT. R. BAVANA NO.994/113 I MAIN I CROSS LAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE. APPELLANT VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1) MYSORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.A.NAVEEN ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JACINTA ZIMIK VASHAI ADDL. CI T O R D E R PER SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI JM; THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1998-99. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WI THOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFOR E HIM. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDIN G. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER THERE WAS A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE A CT IN THE ITA.NO.145(B)/11 2 CASE OF ONE SHRI T.G.NAGENDRA PRASAD IN WHOSE CASE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC WAS COMPLETED AND IT WAS OBSER VED THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PORTION O F THE PROPERTY IN MYSORE FROM THE SAID PERSON. RELYING O N THIS INFORMATION THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T AND RE- OPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT AND COM PLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ORDER DATED 31-05-2007. SIMILAR LY THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD WERE ALSO INITIATED IN THE CA SE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THAT ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED ON 30-04-2007 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30-05-2007. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 1 43(3) READ WITH SEC.147 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1 6-06- 2007. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE BL OCK ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31-05-2007 BUT HAS NOT FILED T HE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-05-2007 BELA TEDLY BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THAT SINCE BOTH THE OR DERS WERE RECEIVED WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OVER ONE OF THE ORDERS TO HER ITP AND WAS UN DER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH THE ORDERS WERE FOR T HE SAME YEAR AND THEREFORE ONE APPEAL WAS SUFFICIENT. ONL Y AFTER ITA.NO.145(B)/11 3 COMING TO KNOW THAT AN APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SEC.147 DID THE ASSESSEE REALIZE HER MISTAKE AND IMMEDIATELY FILED AN APPEAL WITH A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTIO N. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY ON THE GROU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VIGILANT AND DILIGENT IN FILIN G THE APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHIL E THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS I FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSES SEE IS A HOUSE WIFE SHE WAS VIGILANT ENOUGH TO FILE THE APP EAL AGAINST THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEES CONTENT ION THAT SHE THOUGHT THAT BOTH BEING FOR THE SAME YEAR ONE APPEAL WAS SUFFICIENT SEEMS TO BE BONAFIDE ENOUGH. THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS UJAGAR SINGH REPORTED IN (2010) 6 SCC 786 HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE LIBERAL IN CONDONING THE DELA Y BECAUSE JUSTICE CAN BE DONE ONLY WHEN THE MATER IS FOUGHT O N MERITS ITA.NO.145(B)/11 4 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW RATHER THAN TO DISPOSE I T OF ON SUCH TECHNICALITIES AND THAT TOO AT THE THRESHOLD A ND UNLESS MALAFIDES ARE WRIT LARGE ON THE CONDUCT OF THE PART Y GENERALLY AS A NORMAL RULE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED. IN VIE W OF THE SAME WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO CONDONE THE DELA Y OF 512 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND REM IT THE ISSUE ON MERITS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RE-CONSIDER ATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE DATED: 14-07-2011. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF(BLORE) BY ORDER AR ITAT BANGALORE