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. 718/JP/2016
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A)
Alwar dated 01.06.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised
the following grounds of appeal :-
“That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case is not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal at the threshold level and also erred in dismissing the same thus depriving the assessee from the justice. 2. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making a disallowance of Rs. 108000.00 within the meaning of section 40a(ia) of the IT Act 1961 and the CIT (A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon. 3. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making a disallowance of Rs.
2 ITA No. 718/JP/2016 M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar.
14000.00 and 26500.00 paid on account of donations and gifts within the meaning of section 37(1) of the IT Tax 1961 and the CIT(A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon.”
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the
appeal preferred before ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on account of delay. He
submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that, there was no
deliberate or malafide for not preferring the appeal within the limitation
prescribed under the law. He submitted that the delay was caused due to
bonafide reasons. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme court rendered in the case Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji
& Others 167 ITR 471 (SC).
On the contrary, ld. Departmental Representatives opposed the
submissions.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available
on records and gone through the order of the authorities below. Under the
facts of the present case the contention of the assessee is that the assessee
could not prefer an appeal as the order remain with the accountant and he
forgot to hand over the same to the assessee, when it came to the notice of
the assessee he project the C.A. for filing the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme
court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167
ITR 471 (SC) has held as under:-
“ The legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 o the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on
3 ITA No. 718/JP/2016 M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar. merits. The expression “sufficient cause” in section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. “every day’ delay must be explained” does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigations, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. “when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.”
Respectively following ratio laid down by the Hon’be Supreme Court, we
hereby condone the delay and restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A)
for decision afresh on merit.
Thus, Ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground no. 2 and 3 are also restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision
on merit.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 718/JP/2016, is
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday, the 22nd day of March
2017.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ ¼ dqy Hkkjr ½ (BHAGCHAND) (Kul Bharat) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
4 ITA No. 718/JP/2016 M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar. Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22 /03/2017. Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@ M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-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. 718/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत