Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
Consolidated Appeals (4)
to 168/RJT/2016 A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, & 2000-01 - 2 - सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The bunch of appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the orders all dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-II, Rajkot arising out of the order all dated 31.03. 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Gandhidham passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 & 2000-01 respectively. Since all the cases relate to the same assessee, and the issue is identical, these matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.
An application has also been filed by the assessee praying for condonation of delay of 422 days in preferring the instant appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. An affidavit affirmed by one Shri Liladhar Tikamchand Khushalani claims to be the karta of the HUF explaining the delay has been annexed to the file. The gist of the said explanation is this that the assessee firm was constituted by the partners namely Tikamchand Khushalani, Shankarlal Tikamchand Khushalani and the deponent of the affidavit being Liladhar Tikamchand Khushalani; the said Liladhar Tikamchand Khushalani happens to be a sleeping partner of the said firm. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the said Tikamchand Khushalani who was attending the assessment in all appeal proceedings for A.Ys. 1997-98 to 2000 2001 died on 16.10.2008 and to 168/RJT/2016 A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, & 2000-01 - 3 - thereafter, Shankarlal Tikamchand Khushalani attended the pending litigations till his demise on 05.05.2017. The said Shankarlal Tikamchand Khushalani also filed an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-II, Rajkot along with an affidavit dated 27.02.2016 stating that it has been brought to his notice that the appeal has been disposed off but the order copy whereof has not been received by him. However, no reply has been forthcoming from the revenue authorities to that effect till date. Since the deponent of the instant affidavit was the sleeping partner of the firm was not aware of the litigations pending before the revenue authorities. Only upon receiving some penalty notices wherefrom it appears that the appeal preferred by the assessee for the A.Ys.1997-98 to 2000-01 have been dismissed, the deponent Shri Liladhar Tikamchand Khushalani contacted the Learned concerned CIT-A, Rajkot and requested to the Ld. AO to provide a copies of the appellate orders by and under an application dated 27.02.2016 whereupon those orders were made available on 08.03.2016 and only thereafter on 06.05.2016 the instant appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal by the assessee.
We have carefully considered the explanation rendered by the deponent of the affidavit which seems to be genuine. The delay caused due to practical difficulty which is genuine and bona fide as it also appears from the said affidavit. It is also a fact that unless the delay is condoned the assessee would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. We, thus, for the ends of justice condone the delay. to 168/RJT/2016 A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, & 2000-01 - 4 - 4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee due to the reasons mentioned above could not appear before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-II, Rajkot and hence the appeal has been dismissed ex-parte by confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO. He, therefore, prays for another opportunity of being heard in order to represent his case before the authorities below in its proper perspective and therefore pressed for setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for considering the issue afresh.
The learned representative of the Department, however, has not objected to such prayer made by the learned AR.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the reasons for not been able to represent the case before the revenue by the assessee we find it fit and proper in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice to afford a further opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thus we dispose of the matter with the direction upon the Ld. AO to reconsider the issue afresh upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the materials on record and also any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. However, we make it clear that the assessee will also cooperate with the Assessing Officer without asking for any unnecessary adjournment.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA No.165 to 168/RJT/2016 A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, & 2000-01 - 5 - to 168/Rjt/2016 (A.Ys. 1998-99 to 2000-01):- 7. The grounds of appeal as argued by the Ld. AR is identical to that of the issue already dealt with by us in ITA No. 165/Rjt/2016 for A.Y. 1997-98 and in the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. Hence, these grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the combined results, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28/02/2020