G.R.C.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

As the outset, we found that both the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation of 434 & 356 days. In this regard, ld. AR of the assessee has filed application along with affidavit in both the appeals stating the reasons therein. In the affidavit filed by the assessee, it has been submitted that due to negligence and lapses on the part of the authorised representative of the assessee, he could be able to pursue the matter before the ITAT in time, resulting into delay of 434 & 356 days in the respective appeals. Accordingly, he submitted that the delay of above days in filing the present appeals may kindly be condoned. On the other hand, ld. DR opposed to condone the delay.

On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, it is found that the delay occurred in filing the present appeal due to the mistake of the authorised representative of the assessee. In our opinion, mistake of the authorised counsel of the assessee may be taken into consideration for condoning the delay in filing the present appeals as has been held in plethora of judgments. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 1987 AIR 1353, has laid down that in such matters, a liberal approach is adopted as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. It has been further laid down that 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. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay of 434 & 356 days in filing the respective appeals and both the appeals are admitted for final hearing. ITA No.1072/CHNY/2015 : 4. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the assessee had filed evidences before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) denied to admit the same and dismissed both the appeals of the assessee, thereby enhancing the income of the assessee. 5. It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that CIT(A) has not provided proper opportunity before passing the impugned order and even the CIT(A) has not considered the evidences filed before him by the 3 ITA Nos.1072&1073/Chny/2015 assessee.Therefore, ld. AR of the assessee requested to send the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to readjudicate the issue after considering the evidence filed by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. On careful perusal of the submissions of the ld AR of the assessee as well as the relevant material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) should have admitted the documents for the purpose of adjudication of appeals. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1072/Chny/2015 is restored back to the file of CIT(A) and the CIT(A) is directed to consider the documents to be filed by the assessee and pass a reasonable order after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well as to the AO. It is made clear that the assessee should not be allowed to file any other evidence besides the evidences which were filed before the CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for early disposal of the appeal. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In this appeal the grievance of the assessee is with regard to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

Both the parties have agreed that this appeal is arising out of enhancement order passed by the CIT(A). Since, we have already restored the main appeal to the file of CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of 4 the assessee in ITA No.1072/CHNY/2015 for readjudication after allowing opportunity of hearing to the asessee, therefore, this penalty appeal is also restored to the file of CIT(A) with the observations as made hereinabove. Liberty is granted to the ld. CIT(A) for initiation of penalty proceeding, if required, as per outcome of original appeal order to be passed after readjudication. Thus, is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/02/ 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (ARUN KHODPIA) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखध सदस्य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; नििाांक Dated 16/02/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.(on tour) आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 1. Mr. GRC Saravanan, No.25, Arunodhya Apartment 179, Choolaimedu High RoadChennai-600094 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- The ITO, Company Ward1(1), Chennai 3. आयकि आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT 5. नवभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकि अपीलीय अनर्किण, Chennai / DR, ITAT, Chennai 6. गार्ा फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानपत प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,