DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. MAHARWAL KHEWAJI TRUST, FARIDKOT

IN THE IN TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1709 to 1712/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2010-11) The D.C.I.T., Vs. M/s Maharawal Khewaji Trust, Circle-1(Exemptions), Moti Mahal, The Fort, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. PAN: AAATM2875R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Manjit Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by : S/Shri Lalit Mohan Gupta & J.K. Gupta, Adv. Date of hearing :09.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement :15.06.2018

ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

All the above appeals have been preferred by the

Revenue against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax(Appeals), Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as

(‘Ld.CIT(Appeals)’ all dated 25.8.2015 passed u/s 250(6) of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in Appeal

Nos.140 to 143-IT/CIT(A)/BTI/14-15 relating to assessment

years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively

appeals, the same were heard together and are being

disposed off by this consolidated order.

the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty levied by the

Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, the

Ld. counsel for assessee has submitted that the appeals of

2 ITA Nos.1709 to 1712/Chd/2017 AYs: 2007-08 to 2010-11

the Revenue are time barred by almost two years. He, in

this respect, invited our attention to the impugned orders of

the CIT(Appeals) which are dated 25.8.2015 and he has

further submitted that the Revenue has filed present

appeals on 27.12.2017. The limitation period prescribed

under the Act for preferring the appeal against the order of

the CIT(Appeals) in this Tribunal is 60 days from the date of

communication of the order to the assessee or to the

Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may

be. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, has further

submitted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bathinda would have transferred the impugned orders of

the CIT(Appeals), Bathinda on or about 9.9.2015 to the

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh for necessary

action at his end which would have received by him on or

about 16.9.2015. The Ld. counsel for assessee has further

submitted that even the assessee had also filed appeals

against the impugned orders of the CIT(Appeals) before

Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal, which were decided vide

order dated 7.2.2017 and which were received by the

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, who

further transferred the same to the Commissioner of Income

Tax, Chandigarh by 28.2.2017, whereas the appeals in

question have been filed on 27.12.2017 which are

apparently time barred. The Ld. counsel for assessee has

further submitted that even otherwise, the jurisdiction lies

with the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal and not with the

3 ITA Nos.1709 to 1712/Chd/2017 AYs: 2007-08 to 2010-11

Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeals are

not maintainable before this Bench.

cases of the assessee earlier were assessed by Income Tax

Officer-III, Ferozepur. However, the jurisdiction of the cases

for the above mentioned assessment years had been

transferred to the office of the DCIT(Exemptions),

Chandigarh in pursuance of the orders of the Addl. CIT

(Exemptions), Range-I, Chandigarh dated 15.11.2014.

Therefore, the DCIT, Chandigarh has preferred the present

appeals. Further it has been pleaded that the DCIT,

Chandigarh did not receive the orders of the Commissioner

of Income Tax, Bathinda. It was only when the orders of the

Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal dated 7.2.2017 were

received and it was found that the CIT(Appeals) has given

relief to the assessee on the main issue by way of deleting

the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. A letter was

written to the CIT(Appeals), Bathinda to send the copy of

the orders so that further decision regarding filing of

further appeal may be taken. Thereafter, receiving copy of

the impugned orders of the CIT(Appeals), the present

appeals have been preferred.

the appeals of the Revenue are apparently time barred by

two years. The assessee had also filed the appeals against

the impugned orders of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal

which were heard on 28.11.2016 and were decided on

4 ITA Nos.1709 to 1712/Chd/2017 AYs: 2007-08 to 2010-11

7.2.2017 vide consolidated order in ITA Nos.547 to

550(Asr)/2015. The Department was duly represented

through Ld. DR Shri Vedpal Singh. The above facts clearly

show that the Department was in knowledge for the

impugned orders of the CIT(Appeals). Moreover, the

Memorandum of appeals alongwith relevant documents were

also sent to the respondent by the Tribunal while serving

the notice of the appeals. Upon service of such notice,

representative of the Department duly appeared before the

Tribunal and argued the matter in detail. At that time, no

objection had been raised by the D.R. that copy of the

impugned orders had not been received by the Department.

Moreover, a copy of the order of the CIT(Appeals) was very

much available on the file and after going through the

same, the Department had contested the issue raised by the

assessee in relation to the adverse findings given by the

CIT(Appeals), against which the assessee had preferred an

appeal.

officials of the Department, in no way, can be a ground to

extend the limitation period or to condone the delay in

filing the appeals. Even, no application for condonation of

delay ahs been filed by the Department. Under the

circumstances, without going to the question of territorial

jurisdiction the appeals being barred by limitation are

hereby dismissed.

5 ITA Nos.1709 to 1712/Chd/2017 AYs: 2007-08 to 2010-11

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 15th June, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh