SHRI KUMAR VIKALP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 936/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 December 2018AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee had a reasonable basis for the delay. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay. The assessee had lost the original penalty order and faced a significant delay in obtaining a certified copy from the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 936/JP/2018

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar Garg (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 04/12/2018Pronounced: 06/12/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 936/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke Kumar Vikalp, DCIT, Vs. Jaipur Circle-3, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACDPV6557E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Garg (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Jay Singh (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/12/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/12/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 29.06.2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 wherein the appeal of the assessee arising out of order passed by the DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act was dismissed at the admission stage as there was delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee.

2.

Heard both the parties and purused the material available on record.

3.

It is admitted position that penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) which was issued on 12.08.2016 was served on the assessee. However, the assessee had lost the said order. Thereafter, the assessee had moved an application seeking certified copy of the order on 25.11.2016. Thereafter, the certified copy of the penalty order was supplied to the assessee on 03.05.2017 and thereafter, the assessee

ITA No. 936/JP/2018 Kumar Vikalp, Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur preferred the appeal with the ld. CIT(A) on 19.05.2017. It is thus noted that for the period starting 15.11.2016 to 03.05.2017 for the reasons based known to the Revenue, the assessee was not supplied a certified copy of the order. The assessee’s letter to AO dated 25.11.2016 was brought to our notice wherein we find that the asseesee has requested for certified copy of the order. Therefore, it would be reasonable to exclude the said period while determining the period of delay which has happened in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) as no fault lies with the assessee. Further, it is noted that once certified copy of the order was served on the assessee on 03.05.2007, the assessee has filed the appeal on 19.05.2017.

4.

In light of above, we are of the view that the assessee has got a reasonable basis for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the same and in the interest of justice, we hereby condoned the delay and the matter is set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merit after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the Open Court on 06/12/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/12/2018 *Ganesh Kr. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Kumar Vikalp, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 2

ITA No. 936/JP/2018 Kumar Vikalp, Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 936/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →