Srishti Carriers (P) Ltd., v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 587/LKW/2014 | 1996-1997
Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 58723714 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAICS3807Q
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 587/LKW/2014
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Srishti Carriers (P) Ltd.,
Respondent Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 15-10-2014
Next Hearing Date 15-10-2014
Assessment Year 1996-1997
Appeal Filed On 04-07-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.587 TO 590/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1996-97 & 1997-98 SRISHTI CARRIERS (P) LTD. 9 TH FLOOR SANGAM PLACE CIVIL LINES ALLAHABAD V. JOINT CIT SPECIAL RANGE III LUCKNOW PAN/PAN:AAICS3807Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. ABHINAV MEHROTRA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. O.N. PATHAK D.. DATE OF HEARING: 15 10 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 11 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THESE APPEALS ARE EMANATED FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED AGAINST THE QUANTUM ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT'). 2. DURING THE COURSE HEARING OF THE APPEALS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS AND ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS UNDERGONE LIQUIDATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS APPOINTED BY THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO CHALLENGE THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE :- 2 -: AUTHORITY BUT SUBJECT TO GRANT OF SANCTION FROM THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN THIS REGARD ON 10.8.2010. THEREAFTER THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HAS MOVED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR GRANTIG PERMISSION TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY PERMISSION/SANCTION WAS GRANTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON 19.1.2012. THEREAFTER THE LIQUIDATOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS APPROACHED HIS COUNSEL VIDE LETTER DATED 3.2.2012 AND THEREAFTER APPEALS WERE FILED ON 14.2.2012 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THROUGH SPEED POST BUT THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE SAME. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED TO THE AUTHORITIES AND THE APPEALS WERE ACCORDINGLY FILED ON 11.5.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS AND DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY TIME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE REASONS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. THEREFORE THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE APPEALS BE HEARD ON MERIT. 3. THE LD. D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTUAL ASPECT. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS GONE INTO LIQUIDATION AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS APPOINTED THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WITH A DIRECTION TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THEREAFTER THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR APPROACHED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND OBTAINED SANCTION FOR FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SANCTION WAS GRANTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ONLY ON 19.1.2012. THEREAFTER APPEALS WERE FILED ON 14.2.2012 BUT IT WAS REFUSED TO RECEIVE BY THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. :- 3 -: THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE AUTHORITIES AND THE APPEALS WERE RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A). WHILE DENYING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS UNDER WHICH THE APPEALS WERE FILED. 5. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL A PRAGMATIC APPROACH SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE HARDSHIP BEING FACED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BUT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE APPEALS WERE FILED. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH NOVEMBER 2014 JJ:1510 :- 4 -: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR