DOULAT C. GULANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

This is an appeal directed against the order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned “CIT(A)”] relevant to the assessment year 2006-07.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the file carefully. The sole point which has been raised before us is that the assessee should be allowed to file the additional evidence. In the instant case the assessment order of the assessee was passed on 10.12.2008 and the assessee wanted to adduce some documents in its additional evidence and thus appeal is filed before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the Assessment Year: 2006-07 application filed by the assessee vide order dated 18.02.2014 only on the reason that the delay has not been properly explained. It is not dispute that the assessment order was passed on 10.12.2008 and was served upon the assessee on 18.12.2008. The appeal is required to be filed on or before 17.01.2009. Order of learned CIT(A) perused which speaks that date of filing the appeal is 18.03.2009. No doubt if there is delay in filing of the appeal then there is a delay of two month only whereas the learned CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned the facts about the delay of 8 months which is wrong fact. To consider the delay the assessee had also an affidavit in which he has mentioned that his business was a family business and there was dispute among his three sons and he was mentally and physically disturbed. He also mentioned his age about 72 years in his affidavit. Since the delay is only for the period of 2 months and reasons mentioned in the affidavit has not been controverted without any counter affidavit as well as any other evidence on record. Moreover, the assessment of the assessee was finalised on 10.12.2008 and only after the 5days he moved an application to adduce additional evidence in support of his contention. Therefore, keeping in view of all the facts and circumstances mentioned above and in the interest of justice we are of the view that the application for the condonation of delay is liable to be allowed. Hence we order accordingly. In view of the above, we restore all the issues to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication of issues on merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as allowed.