Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM
ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad dated 26.02.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Preliminary Issue - Condonation of Delay 2. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal could not be filed in time and the said appeal is filed with the delay of 610 days. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for non-filing the appeal of the assessee in time. For the sake of completeness, the relevant para of the said affidavit is extracted hereunder :-
“1. That I am an individual and a Development Officer of LIC, assessed to tax under PAN: ADRPT2160Q 2. That I have preferred an appeal bearing appeal 128/PUN/2017 For A.Y.2011-12.
3. That there is delay in filling the appeal by 578 days.
4. That due to the illness and hospitalization of my father there was a delay in giving the copy of the order of CIT(A) to my Chartered Accountant Shri Sunil Kocheta immediately. Copy of Medical Certificate of my father Mr. Pandurang Thete is enclosed 5. That when I contacted the Authorized Representative with all the papers I came to know that an appeal was to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of order of the CIT(A).
In the circumstances the filling of appeal got delayed by 578 days.
That the delay in filling an appeal was not intentional.
That in view of the reasons given in para 4 and 5 above, there was a reasonable cause in not preferring the appeal in time, before the Hon’ble Tribunal and accordingly application for condonation of delay is submitted as the delay of 578 days is unintentional the delay may please be condoned and request for admitting the appeal filed by me is made.
That whatever stated above in para 1 to 8 is true and correct to the best of my knowledge & belief.”
Considering the above reasons given by the assessee in the affidavit, we find it is a fit case for condoning the delay of 610 days. After condoning the delay, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee in the following paragraphs.
Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the present appeal, the assessee raised mainly two issues by way of various grounds of appeal
. The first issue relates to the allowability of the expenses u/s 10(14) of 5. the Act, when the evidences are furnished. Mentioning that the amounts are received from the LIC only on furnishing of evidences in support of the incurring of expenditure, ld. Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the reasonable opportunity may be granted to the assessee furnishing evidences before the revenue authorities. Further, the assessee requested for grant of an opportunity and also requested for remanding the said issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh.
6. After hearing both the sides and considering the legal nature of the issue in question, we are of the opinion that the request of the assessee should be considered. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to file the relevant information/evidences before the Assessing Officer in support of the claim of exemption u/s 10(14) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to entertain such evidences in accordance with law. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per set principles of natural justice. Thus, the first issue raised in grounds no.1 and 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Referring to the second issue raised in ground no.3 relating to the 7. additions, ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the additional evidences in respect of the credits found in the accounts of the assessee.
8. Heard both the sides. We have considered the assessee’s prayer i.e. admission of the additional evidences and find it relevant to accept the same in the interest of justice. Considering the legal nature of the additional evidences, we are of the opinion that this issue needs to be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the said additional evidences and pass a speaking order as per law. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall decide