RADHIKA GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

I say that I have studied only up to 4th Standard, in Hindi medium. I say that one Mr. Ishwamitra Chaurasiya was carrying on a small business of buying and selling of SIM cards and mobile recharge, which was managed from my shop. I say that all transactions were conducted through my bank account by the manager on my behalf, and total cash deposits during the Financial year ended 31.3.2012 amounted to Rs.15,04,170/- (Fifteen Lakhs Four Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Only). Out of these, payments were also made to distributors, leaving only a small net profit of about Rupees 22,676/- (Twenty-Two Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Six Only), which was below the taxable limit.

On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.

Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that where substantial Radhika Gupta., Mumbai. justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

From the records, I noticed that the assessee was ex- parte before AO and Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was reasonable cause as explained in the application for condonation of delay which prevented the assessee to represent properly before AO and Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that assessee was not a techno-savvy and did not regularly use e-mail and hence was unaware about the tax proceedings, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before AO and Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before AO. Therefore Radhika Gupta., Mumbai. considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for denova assessment after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.