SANJAY ARORA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 731/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 January 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay. The CIT(A) rejected the application for condonation of delay, thereby not deciding the issue on merits. The assessee contended that the delay was due to sufficient cause and relied on various judicial pronouncements.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits due to rejection of condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 731/JP/2016

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samdhani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 25/01/2018Pronounced: 25/01/2018

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.

2.

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).

3.

On the contrary, the ld DR has opposed the submissions made by

the ld. AR of the assessee.

4.

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.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →