Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 731/JP/2016
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 731/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Sanjay Arora, ITO, Vs. 1/553, Kala Kuan Housing Board, Ward 2(1), Alwar, (Raj)- 301001 Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPA 5695 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Ms. Shivangi Samdhani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Jagdish Chand Kulhari (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 25/01/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: KUL BHARAT, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated
03/05/2016 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Alwar for the A.Y. 2011-12. The
grounds taken by the assessee in appeal are as under:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the application of condonation of delay. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and in considering the value adopted for stamps duty purpose of calculating short term capital gain in respect of two properties sold by the Appellant and upholding consequent
ITA 731/JP/2016_ 2 Sanjay Arora Vs ITO
addition of INR 3,13,776/- even when the difference in stamp duty valuation vis-a-vis stated sale consideration does not exceeds the tolerable band of 15% variation as decided in various judicial pronouncements time to time. 3. The aforesaid grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other.
At the outset, the ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld.
CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the application for condonation of
delay. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167
ITR 471. She also relied on the following decisions:
(i) Smt. Sita Bai Khetan Vs ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur ITA No. 826/JP/20-13.
(ii) M/s John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No. 7545/Mum/2014
(iii) Jayvantsingh N Naghela Vs ITO (2013) 40 taxmann.com 491 (Guj).
On the contrary, the ld DR has opposed the submissions made by
the ld. AR of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and
perused the material available on the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR
471 has held as under:
‘‘The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting S. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial
ITA 731/JP/2016_ 3 Sanjay Arora Vs ITO justice to parties by disposing of matters on “merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the end of justice—that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. ……. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. ……. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so...”
Under the present facts, we are of the view that the assessee was
prevented by sufficient cause for filing appeal late. Therefore, in the
interest of justice and equity, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned
and we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) back with direction to decide
the issue on merit after providing adequate and effective opportunity of
being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/01/2018. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ ¼dqy Hkkjr½ (BHAGCHAND) (Kul Bharat) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25th January, 2018
ITA 731/JP/2016_ 4 Sanjay Arora Vs ITO *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Sanjay Arora, Alwar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(1), Alwar. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 731/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत