SRI TRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 28(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

This appeal by assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata dated 15.05.2013. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-28(2), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28.12.2006 for assessment year 2004-05. Penalty levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 25.09.2007.

ITA No.2080/Kol/2013 A.Y.2004-05 Sh Triyogi Narayan Singh v. ITO Wd-28(2) Kol. Page 2 levied under section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act by order dated 8.12.2006 and 25.09.2007 respectively. Against the penalty order under section 271(1)(b), the assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A) on dated 2.7.2007 and mentioned in the form 35 of the appeal form that appeal is filed against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act but factually it was only against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that this mistake was discovered when the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on dated 15.9.2009 against the penalty order 271(1)(b) of the Act. So the assessee filed the appeal against the penalty order 271(1)(c) of the Act on dated 22.9.2009. In such circumstances, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also placing relevant material before him, so that he can decide the issue either on his order or by taking remand report from the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Ld. SR-DR has not objected to remitting the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No.2080/Kol/2013 A.Y.2004-05 Sh Triyogi Narayan Singh v. ITO Wd-28(2) Kol. Page 3 are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decision. This is more so because such orders are subject to further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The object is too obvious. It enables a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Absence of the formulation of the points for decision or want of clarity in a decision, undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. A decision against a party enables him to go in appeal. A decision by its very nature must be firm and should not be vague and unclear. On the other hand the ld. DR opposed the submission of the assessee and prayed not to condone the delay. However we find that in many cases the courts have taken liberal approach in condoning the delay. In this connection we are putting our reliance in the following judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) AIR 387 (SC) wherein 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 ends of justice – that being the life- purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy/. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that:- “Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”

Further we find that this Tribunal has condoned the delay as many as 245 and 800 days respectively in the case of Jeewanlal Limited (1929) Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA Nos 1994-1995/Kol/2003 in “C” Bench dated 04-06-2004, the extract is reproduced below:- “3. Regarding the merits of the appeals before us, we have heard the parties. We find that the disallowances out of various expenses have been partly confirmed by the C.I.T(Appeals) without passing any speaking order. Accordingly, in the facts of the case, were consider it reasonable to set

ITA No.2080/Kol/2013 A.Y.2004-05 Sh Triyogi Narayan Singh v. ITO Wd-28(2) Kol. Page 4 aside the issues raised in these appeals to the file of the C.I.T(Appeals) with direction to pass a de novo appellate order on merits in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. We order accordingly.”

In such presidents of the situation and taking a consistent view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition (supra) and the order of this Tribunal in the case of Jeewanlal Limited (supra), we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to pass a de nove order on merits in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of bearing heard to the parties. This ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.